“When statisticians have wished to lie”:

THE LESSON OF THE FCIC REPORT

By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

February 11, 2011

The Federal Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), has exposed a pattern of official and related lies, lies without which it would not have been possible for the U.S. government, and others, such as those of Europe, to have continued the practice of that reckless financial gambling which had reigned in U.S. and European economic policy since the time that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy cleared the way for the U.S. launching of ten years of folly of the protracted war in Indo-China. The assassination of that President’s brother, Robert, who had been a likely victor in the 1968 Presidential election, permitted the continued reign of the folly which had been permitted by President Kennedy’s assassination, a folly which was never reversed, “come rain or shine,” since the 1969-1973 term of a wretched President Richard Nixon, and, notably, the 1977-1980 term of that instrument of a spectacularly “uncreative destruction,” President “Jimmy” Carter.

The 1968 election of President Nixon had cleared the way for the August 1971 cancellation of President Roosevelt’s 1944 Bretton Woods, fixed-exchange-rate system; the 1976 election of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission puppet, President Carter, led, in turn, into that process of looting the U.S. economy which led, over two decades, into the 1999 repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Law which triggered that careening of the U.S. economy into the state of hyper-inflationary bankruptcy which still grips the trans-Atlantic community at the date these lines are written.

Since the time which began with the assassination of President Kennedy, even leaders of nations whose intentions had leaned into a nobler direction, have found themselves, willing or not, virtually impelled to act in ways which had been, essentially, more and more contrary to that intention of the U.S. Constitution’s prescription of a U.S. credit system, rather than a monetarist system. It must be said of even the well-intentioned governing circles, that much of what had actually been their good intention, was usually discarded as having been being deemed “impracticable” by the tenor of the times.

Presidents Nixon and Carter should be considered as having been two typical cases of those calamities which have, from time to time, inhabited our nation’s executive mansion; but, when we take into account the relatively larger number of those cases of Presidents who were our national misfortunes, or Vice-Presidents selected, for good, or, for worse, who were implicitly foredoomed to become Presidents as fruit of some incumbent’s assassination, the truly remarkable fact about our American System has been, that, hitherto, our republic had survived the tenure of even those shockingly bad, or only badly disoriented Presidents with which we have often been encumbered during the course of the U.S.A.’s existence thus far, as far as decent respect for the principle of our Federal Constitution’s noble Preamble might have reached. But, if Barack Obama is not sent into richly earned permanent retirement from political office, very soon, we might lose the precious gift of the exemption of our republic, which we have enjoyed this far.

So far, in this young century, we have met what has been, probably, the worst of the recent crop of bad cases of what have been Presidents: George W. Bush, Jr., and, now, the worst of them by far, that Barack Obama well-suited for expulsion under the prescription of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to our Federal Constitution. Now, unless that President Obama were removed from office by means of the U.S. Constitution’s 25th Amendment very soon, the chance for survival of our republic seems to any competent expert observer, at best, almost infinitesimal, if it exists at all. If our United States were to go down for this reason, the chances for the trans-Atlantic region were immediately almost nil, and Asia would soon follow all the way down.

Hopefully, despite that ominous current state of affairs, we have reason to celebrate the role of the Angelides (FCIC) Commission in stirring our nation up, and, hopefully, away from the recent, terrible afflictions which creatures such as Alan Greenspan, George W. Bush, Jr., and Barack Obama, have brought upon both our republic, and much of the world besides, during their times in high public office. The pertinent question is: will the forces represented by Angelides’ intention be permitted to succeed in the time that the United States still exists in a condition to be saved from the ruin brought upon us by the Bush and Obama Presidencies?

When we are confronted by matters of high-ranking experience of nations, such as those illustrative cases of grave moral failures such as Alan Greenspan, George Bush, Jr., and the wretched Barack Obama, we must look to the fault in even recent times’ nominally scholarly misreading of the work of William Shakespeare; we must avoid the temptation to locate tragedy in the choice made by a particular person and his, or her times. The lesson which I present to you in this report, on that account, is evidence that we must shift our attention from the particular case of some person’s life-time, to the broader realm of both the several generations preceding and also following the relatively brief life-span of any relevant individual. We must ask ourselves: “How must we cope with that which envelops us and our choices from the continuing history into which we were born and the prospect presently embedded in some future time even far beyond our demise?” We must consider the impact of past generations, and of the prospect of generations ahead on the present; we must regard, thus, the history of the United States, from its birth in Massachusetts, until the crisis represented by the defective nature of the present decade’s two U.S. Presidents, as it illustrates the principle involved in the matter.1In its recent discussions, the “basement’s” scientific team has emphasized attention to the specific incompetence of the British biologist’s custom associated with the name of Charles Darwin, which purports to explain the selection among species with utter incompetence, as according to the social utilitarian “pleasure-pain principle” of Paolo Sarpi’s boorish mimic. the charlatan Charles Darwin. It is the nature of the order in the universe, that if, and when we adopted a purported rule of practice which is contrary to the actual, physical ordering-principle in the universe, we do great damage to mankind by the adoption of a false choice of universal ordering principle in the guidance of society’s behavior. Darwin was not merely wrong; he did grave damage to any society which tolerated his alleged “principle,” just as Adam Smith has ruined every part of the world economy on which his foolish doctrine has succeeded in exerting influence. The person is, in a certain way, immortal, in respect to that both bestowed by the past and crafted by the influence of the approaching future in our time.

What is currently threatened to become the early doom of our United States, is, immediately, a product of the folly of allowing President Barack Obama to remain in office after the warning signs were already made clear in April 2009. The ultimate blame would lie with those influentials, in the U.S.A. itself, who failed to act in support of the lawful expulsion of the failed, mentally impaired President Obama in good time.

So, we must be informed to that effect by the greatest of the modern poets and dramatists, such as Friedrich Schiller, who understood that the quality of a true hero befitting the Classical tragedy, is of that type of citizen in the audience who senses an obligation to discover, and who is impelled to effect those changes in society which will prompt society to correct those evils in his, or her society which the failed culture of that drama on history’s stage embodies. Let it be so, as the author’s foredoomed principal character of Oscar Wilde’s possibly autobiographical The Picture of Dorian Gray, presents so aptly on the stage of, perhaps, your experience, of the principle of dramatic tragedy so presented.

We human beings are not discrete bodies colliding as if in an imaginary empty space. We are willfully active agents in the reality of the domain of cosmic radiation, within which both our existence and its effects on the whole are embedded, as Percy Bysshe Shelley implies such a view in the concluding known paragraph of the arguably uncompleted, but nonetheless fulfilled, A Defence of Poetry. We must each see ourselves as an instrument, not in mere clock-time, but, within that universal physical space-time in which, and from which our particular experience operates. All other creatures known to us, are governed by a fate dictated to them by the Creator’s lawful design of a creative process which is the universe, that according to the universe’s law of universal creation.

All of the universe is creative, and that essentially so; the so-called “Second Law of Thermodynamics” is not merely a farce, but an evil one. We, alone, among creatures made known to us in this infinitely creative universe, thus far, show us our power to introduce the imprint of willful choice of creativity for our action upon that universe. We are, therefore, responsible for the effects of what we do, or, more important,often fail to do.

So, the true principle of all man’s attempts at Classical artistic and scientific composition, is that responsibility which we incur by virtue of that special, willful power of creativity which is afforded to us by what we should discern as our creative nature in such domains of the imagination as great science and Classical modes of artistic composition. So, the principles of government must be understood, that as our own U.S. republic made the remarkably correct choice, even as early as the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in basing what would become our Federal Constitution upon the principle of national credit, as opposite to the European folly of choosing a monetarist system. Every time our republic has done itself a great injury, as since the election of the likes of the monetarist practices of U.S. President, and Wall Street’s choice, Winston Churchill’s puppet Harry Truman, we have done great harm to our republic and its citizens.

The good in our nation, the good which has enabled us to survive the incumbency of even wretched elected and comparable officials, is the deathless virtue embedded in the conception of our Federal Constitution, its superior principle in the Preamble, most notably. The Question is: will that Constitution outlive a nation which, like President Obama, might have already lost its soul? Harsh words? Yes, but needed words, nonetheless.

Introduction:

THE SCIENCE OF ECONOMY

If we wish to discuss the policies of our United States competently, we must first understand the exceptional genius inherent in the constitutional principle of our unique republic, a genius which is lodged in the notion, as by Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton’s drafting of the core principle of our Federal Constitution, by the principle of the credit system, as being the principle of a nature which is in contrast to the type of a European monetarist system. Unfortunately, recently, only a relative handful of the current Republican Party members of the U.S. Congress, have exhibited a working understanding of our Constitution’s principle of economy. On the other side of the aisle, it often appears to be the case among Federal legislators generally, that most of today’s Democrats are trembling in their shoes at the prospect of being forced to challenge that far worse than merely utterly incompetent President Barack Obama; at the same time, the current crop of Republicans seated, are, too often, acting like reckless amateurs, or, worse, like mere opportunists of a type similar to the tradition of former supporters of that massive Enron swindle which did so much to ruin our republic and its Federal states, in its time.

For such, and closely related reasons, a few points of clarification respecting the true substance of our credit system, should be presented to assist our Federal representatives and others, to define the principles of the setting within which the urgent realities of our system can then be properly considered. I do not mean to convey the notion, that our better representatives in the Presidency and Congress were intrinsically incompetent; however, while, usually, they do recall the divine residence into which they should intend, ultimately, to enter, they often appear to have mislain the key to re-enter the place where the true faith and honor of our form of republic should reside.

The little known, but often crucially important issues which I now present in this report, are to be considered, on background, as being of the category of ontologically efficient conceptions, rather than, as all too often, a mere playing with rhetoric, or, worse, relying on advice from that graveyard of governments called statistical plots and fancies. Therefore, I present the setting for that prefatory discussion of the proper meaning of the words of legislation under our unique quality of Federal Constitution. I now present that, within this Introduction, as follows.

The Ontological Issues of the Law

It should be the mission of our republic’s process of legislation, and in related matters, that the principles of the law employed by governments, especially our own republic, ought to be as efficient in contributing to human welfare generally in prudent regard for what we must expect to be the consequences of a truly competent adoption of a proven universal principle of physical law, as in the domain of the practice and consequences of physical science. There, exactly, is the pivotal point of contestable forms of prevailing political practice, where the legislative process of the United States has failed of late, so often, so stubbornly, and so awfully.

Customarily, our notions of law in public affairs of government, especially since the death of President John F. Kennedy, as may be fairly said since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt before him, are notions having little to no correspondence to the standard for a true principle of nature otherwise. Our tendency to adapt to the rotten ideas of that alien, Sarpian force of British Liberalism, the system of nothing but the evil Old Adam’s mere pleasure or pain, is among the worst of our follies of judicial and related practice on this account.

The notion of a society ordered according to the notion of pleasure and pain, as that is typified by the image of Adam Smith’s devotion to pleasure and pain, rather than reason, is the image of a society already living in the equivalent of Hell, or, perhaps it should be said, as dwellers in the fabled “Cities of the Plain.”

Of late, nothing less important than the need for simple justice by governments and their agencies, is what is violated with increasing recklessness, and that under the wicked intentions shown by leading financier interests and their sundry varieties of accomplices, as shown among the many regions of our planet during recent decades. It is chiefly on that account, that, of late, the principles of law have gone wrong, more and more Liberally corrupted, in and among most of the nations of the world.

The collapse of the Mubarak Presidency of Egypt, for example, was not the failure of President Mubarak himself, but of his holding office, since the mid-1980s, at the price of being held captive to the opportunity of capitulation demanded of him by the intention of an imperialist evil which remains centered, still today, in imperial London. That was an intention which is presently supported by London’s accomplices among the financier accomplices and backers of London inside the United States. It was the starvation spread by the British empire among the inhabitants of Northern Africa, which expressed, most vividly, the murderous policies imposed on Africa during the early 1980s, which have caused the seething ferment erupting throughout the Mediterranean littoral now.

Whose was the pleasure, and whose was the pain, and, “why,” in each instance? The principle of negligence underlying both evils, was, in fact, the same.

Folly by the Design of Rulers of Nations

The principal features of the composition of leading types of ancient Classical, through present European and trans-Atlantic society are, in ascending order of rank: 1.) A society based on a principal language-culture; 2.) A nation (such as a “kingdom,” or republic); 3.) A bloc of nations which is distinguished in some important way as a political-economic bloc of nations, such as a monetarist form of “empire” in the Roman tradition, or, as of the United Kingdom today; 4.) A global, or approximately global association of blocs formed by groups of nations. Each and all, chosen for better or for worse.

That duly considered: since the fall of the Achaemenid Empire, the dominant form of organization of a “bloc of nations” on this planet, until the recent, prospective appearance of a different way of thinking, has been either a culture dominated by a maritime system, such as the series of the four principal, Mediterranean-centered empires known, respectively, as the succession of four stages of a certain single power: 1.) ancient Rome, 2.) Rome’s continued existence in the expression of its successor, Byzantium, 3.) With the decline of “The Second Rome,” Byzantium, similarly, since about A.D. 1000, the “Crusader” empire of permanent warfare under nominal Norman leadership, a system which was premised on the emergence of the dominant monetarist role of the monetary-imperial system of Venice, since about A.D. 1000. This was a “Third Roman Empire.” That was followed by 4.) “A Fourth Roman Empire,” the “New Venetian Empire,”the empire which currently still predominates in human life on our planet, that empire formed around the Anglo-Dutch collection of such as William of Orange, an empire appropriately identified, presently, as “the nominally British world empire of monetarism,” the empire which Edward Gibbon prophesied for Britain’s Lord Shelburne.

The intention to establish a modern republic, an intention which arose in rebellion against the memory of the horrors of Europe’s Fourteenth-century “New Dark Age,” had been expressed earlier in the intentions of such as Dante Alighieri. This intention was to be realized later, as an escape from a “New Dark Age,” in the emergence of that which was to become known as “The Fifteenth-century ‘Golden Renaissance’.” This Renaissance was a process whose prompting was typified by the reaction of the Councils of a renascent Christian church against the horror associated with the martyrdom of Jeanne d’Arc. This a horror which had been wreaked by those reigning Norman relics of a crusaders’ Venice-controlled, feudal England, a horror wreaked by the relics of what had been left over from the demise of the Fourteenth Century’s “Imperial Third Rome,” which was the echo of the feudal Normans seen in England’s untimely Richard III.

Presently, what is fairly identified as “European civilization,” has been divided between the forces representing either the over-reaching reign of what is fairly identified, on the one side, as “New Venetian principle”-based, imperial monetarist systems rooted in the dogma of Paolo Sarpi and such mimics of Sarpi as the silly, but nasty pleasure-pain dogma of Adam Smith. Such have been the expressions of a system of monetarism, since what are known to us as ancient times, a cult of monetarism which has been opposed by the rise of a constitutionally defined, anti-monetarist, credit system, that of our constitutional form of Federal United States. That latter system is centered on the process leading into the system of law brought into its role by the creation of the still unique case of our United States of America.

Our War Against Today’s Brutish Empire

“Wie eng, wie englisch!” – Heinrich Heine.

With the development of trans-continental railway systems which were modeled on the chosen precedent of the U.S.A.’s trans-continental system, the British empire reacted in its malicious intention to preserve the world supremacy of a maritime form of monetarist imperialist tyranny. This has been an intention which has been chiefly expressed as a mortal conflict between, on the one side, what Britain has regarded, since the Philadelphia Centennial celebration of 1876, as its chief, and mortal adversary in the world at large, our own U.S.A. For them, those British drug-traffickers and slavery backers, the methods applied to anti-American ends, have been either brute force in warfare, or, more often, that corruption of the intended victims by which the victims ruin themselves in the fashion of Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray.

The targets of Britain’s malice have also included those European and other sovereign states which were able, at least for some time, to proceed to useful ends in spite of the British imperialist system. These worthies preferred to proceed as by aid of the development of agro-industrial economies based on a commitment to the accelerating rise of the productive powers of those national economies. The relevant rise in powers by the virtuous, are those policies in accord with the spirit which is to be associated with what had become the superiority of the principle of the trans-continental railway system over the formerly dominant, British and other maritime elements of imperial systems, that despite the degenerated, post-World War II orientation to foolishly wasteful use of individual automobiles, instead of mass transit systems, presently.2Any respectable railway system’s rate of travel for passengers, should be in the order of 300 km per hour. The best performance for rail-like travel is obtained in magnetic-levitation modes, both for passengers and for freight. The prospect is for 1,000 miles-per-hour, in evacuated tubes. It must not be overlooked, that the issue on which the British empire based its commitments to planet-wide geopolitical warfare since the A.D. 1890 British monarchy’s ouster of Germany’s Chancellor Bismarck, was the mortal issue of the advantage in net distance travelled of railway passenger and freight traffic, especially freight, for transcontinental and international freight transport over maritime transport. The so-called “automobile industry” was not a waste; what was wasted was the machine-tool-design capability on which any successful economy depends absolutely in modern times.

This so-defined set of circumstances, as fostered by the United States and some other nations, shaped the modern so-called “geopolitical” conflict which has been the principal issue of general and related warfare throughout the planet, since the British monarchy’s success in bringing about the ouster of Germany’s Chancellor Bismark, in 1890, to the present time. No major form of general, or regional warfare has been sustained in any region of the world since that time, which was not an expression, either directly, or implicitly, based on the 1890-2011 continuation of warfare and related conflicts based on what is defined specifically as the form of evil known to us as the geopolitical conflict concocted between, chiefly, the British Empire and its accomplices both inside and outside our U.S.A. This has been a war, by the British empire, against the freedom and the Constitution of the United States of America.

The submission of the U.S.A. President and leaders of the U.S. Congress to the British demand that the Glass-Steagall Law not be reinstituted, is the treasonous motive-in-fact in our present Obama government, from which the citizens of our republic, and their families, are presently suffering so gravely.

The general pattern of that pattern of imperial warfare

engaging modern European nations, even prior to the 1890-2011 period of continuing, British-orchestrated, geopolitical warfare, has been what had become famous as the use of warfare and related systems of homicide employed by the original Roman Empire.

Most of the warfare to be studied over the interval of ancient through contemporary Europe-centered history, has been expressed by the way in which “population reduction” of nations is conducted. This intended population reduction, as it is currently demanded by Britain’s Consort, Prince Philip and his World Wildlife Fund, is an evil fully comparable, and that systemically, to that of the health-care policies of Adolf Hitler’s war-time regime, but far exceeding it in its intended scope.

The issues so posed for modern times, are not limited to those present times. Already, under Charlemagne and his reforms, including his development of a system of inland water-borne transport by way of the integration of a system of rivers and canals, his was a nation regarded by imperial Byzantium as the greatest threat to the Second Roman Empire at that time. The breaking of Charlemagne’s domain into three domains, following his death, set back European civilization for centuries, until the period of the Fifteenth Century’s great ecumenical Council of Florence, but, despite that, much of the legacy of progress under Charlemagne, has lived on into the present time.

This present, Anglophile policy of systemic mass-murder as a method of population-control, goes back, deeply, into pre-Roman times, as having been in service of what is best known as the same “oligarchical principle” associated with the legendary such homicidal conflicts between, on the one side, the oligarchical “gods” of the ruling class, and, on the other, the “mere mortals” of those lower classes whose population was to have been repeatedly culled from time to time, as according to the same policy of genocide in the evil political garments of modern times, policies associated presently with both the World Wildlife Fund and its offshoot known as “the environmentalist movement.”

Empires have often organized wars fought among nations other than their own; such were the two wars which Britain directed with forces from a duped United States against Iraq, the modern Afghan wars, the Israeli-Arab warfare, and so on, all, or most orchestrated by the British empire’s scoundrels, such as Britain’s Tony Blair, for such purposes as NICEly “culling the human herd” in a contemporary British version of a past Adolf Hitler’s “T-4” law.

A crucial case in point, is the New Venetian Party’s “Seven Years War” (among London’s intended victims) of 1756-1763. That war presents a naked example of this practice of orchestrating wars between nations other than one’s own, for the sake of promoting the goals of empire, and of methods of population-control employed by Hitler, under Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair, and under President Barack Obama now.

The often repeated British imperial model of the “Seven Years War,” typifies the pattern of British imperial use of warfare up through the current engagement in Afghanistan, a folly into which British puppet Barack Obama has dumped U.S. forces currently. It is that modern, British-led practice of the policy of “permanent warfare and permanent revolution” of British agent Alexander Helphand (aka “Parvus”) which has given us modern forms of warfare typical of the ancient Roman Empire, a practice which had been the outcome of William of Orange’s takeover of Britain on behalf of that New Venetian Party which established the British Empire, all in a process typified prominently by the case of “The Seven Years War” in its time.

To illustrate that point: consider the period of run-up from that February 1763 Peace of Paris, which pre-defined the transition into the Napoleonic wars.

That transition to which I refer, is dated, in fact, from the time of Napoleon Bonaparte’s trading-in of his Ottoman-oriented wife Josephine, for a Habsburg princess, a change which then defined Napoleon as a puppet of a British-Habsburg patronage, a Napoleon who then conducted wars in Europe, and greatly ruined France, all of which nonsense was aimed, by the masters of the drama on stage, the British Empire and Prince Metternich, to complete the ruin which had been launched, earlier, as the “Seven Years War.” This, as former German Chancellor Bismarck reported, during the period following what had been his expulsion from office on orders of the British monarchy, was the British intention at that time, for yet another “new Seven Years War,” this time the one which created, among others, what is called “World War I,” and, therefore, also, the natural sequel, “World War II,” and, therefore, again, the U.S. wasting war in Indo-China, and, also, the continuation of British gun-trafficking agent Alexander Helphand’s slogan of “permanent warfare and permanent revolution,” as is being done by the British empire’s agents still today in the near parts of Asia, as in Africa.

This same policy of practice has been the continuing intention of the British empire under the process unleashed by the complicity of Britain’s Margaret Thatcher, France’s François Mitterrand, and the consent of the U.S.A.’s President George H.W. Bush, who, in actions defined in 1989-1990, launched the “Euro” as if it were a “bad bank” form of manipulations employed as an implicitly hyper-inflationary means of destruction of the economies of western, central, and eastern continental Europe today.

For us, in the United States, the span from the Jacobin Terror and through the Napoleonic wars, was a period during which that set of European nations which had made the United States’ war for independence a possible success, were being destroyed by the operations of Lord Shelburne’s newly created British Foreign Office, and the operations in that office under Shelburne’s appointed Jeremy Bentham and by Bentham’s crafted successor Lord Palmerston. The preceding achievements in Europe and North America up through 1782 were subsequently ruined substantially through the process of 1782-1789, leading into the repeated continental wars such as those of a Habsburg-owned Napoleon launched under the direction of his British and the Habsburg orchestrators of their shared puppet, that same Napoleon Bonaparte, a decision launched during the crisis of 1789-1790, which left our U.S.A. itself virtually without an effective European ally.

This luring of continental Europe into its own self-destruction by British imperial guidance, should have been noted without surprise for those who, like Shelburne, had gained his power through the preceding “Seven Years War.”

It was not until the U.S. victory over our true enemy, the British Foreign Office of Jeremy Bentham and his protégé and successor Lord Palmerston, in the outcome of a U.S. Civil War which had been prepared, created, and directed by Britain’s Foreign Office under the succession of Jeremy Bentham and Bentham’s own protégé Lord Palmerston, that that U.S.A. which, in the 1870s, was about to complete the revolutionary design for transcontinental railway system, that that U.S.A. under the leadership of President Abraham Lincoln, had been enabled to express itself also as a great power within the domain of the European powers. It was only then, that our U.S.A. could then, and must, now, make great advances against the global evils perpetrated by what has been our traditional British adversary since 1763, the British empire.

The British empire’s chief passion, from those past times to the present day, has been to destroy the spirit of our great Constitutional system, using such tools as the culpable anglophiles George W. Bush, Jr., Barack Obama, and such as the forces of the British East India Company’s Boston bankers’ (e.g., Judge Lowell) gang, and the British agent and American traitor Aaron Burr’s Bank of Manhattan and the Wall Street gang of today generally.

It is within that historical outlook which I have only summarized up to this point, that we must take into account the significance, for us, of such matters as the Napoleonic wars conducted during the interval of Napoleon Bonaparte’s rampages since his abandoning of Josephine both for a Habsburg Princess and a commitment to subject continental Europe to a Napoleonic conduct of the echo of a “new Seven Years War” in early Nineteenth-century Europe.

Such have been sets of wars which are, in each instance, examples of the nature of such wars. Such was the British orchestration of the wars of the 1894-1917 interval, beginning with London’s 1890s alliance with Japan for wars against China, Korea, and, a bit later, Russia, and, since the early 1920s, an alliance of Britain and Japan for their shared intent of a major attack on Pearl Harbor, which was actually unleashed as the opening act which brought on the U.S.A.’s declaration of war under President Franklin Roosevelt. The paradigm expressed by what had been a joint British-Japan commitment to an attack on the Pearl Harbor base expresses the semblance of an inbred instinct of the British empire, still today. No serious patriot could ever doubt that that same motive exists still today, for a different choice of action, perhaps, but for the identical choice of intended result.

Notably, the same practice was that of the original imperial Roman empire, of which Lord Shelburne’s imperialism was a fully witting attempt at a “carbon copy.” The same policy is practiced under the title of the Nietzschean form of what has been named “fascism” since the advent of British imperial, and expendable puppet, Mussolini, a form which is associated with the cult of “creative destruction” of the late Joseph Schumpeter and of the followers of his economics teaching and practice today.

To gain a competent understanding of those factors of conflict which I have just listed in these preceding pages of this introduction, we must focus attention on the nature of the physical-scientific principle which distinguishes the U.S. Constitution, especially its systemically defining Preamble, from empires of a type comparable to the historically typical, ancient empires through that disease to be recognized as the modern, monetarist form of model of political economy.

The Modern Economy Defined

To see into modern trans-Atlantic culture and its conflicts more deeply, look back, to trace modern European history from those beginnings assigned to the paramount roles of both ancient Egypt and the subsequent birth of ancient Greece. Seek the proper answer to the question: how and why was the United States actually created?

Insofar as we think of a modern, as distinct from a medieval Europe, the explicit origin of the United States of America was a statement of policy specific to the founder of modern European science, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. Cusa warned his associates, and stated in the papers setting forth his legacy, that his circles must guide Europeans into crossing the great oceans to build up nations according to the great legacy of that great ecumenical Council of Florence. Cusa himself had contributed so much that was crucial of the Council’s accomplishment and policy, including his providing the basis for the modern sovereign nation-state, in his Concordancia Catholica (1434), and his founding of a system of modern European science, in his De Docta Ignorantia (1440).

The immediate consequence of Nicholas of Cusa’s intention for crossing the great oceans, was by the Christopher Columbus who was inspired, explicitly, by the documented statement of intention by Nicholas of Cusa himself. The misfortune in Columbus’ effort, was that the Spanish monarchy had become a puppet of the Habsburg dynasty, a dynasty which more or less effectively crushed the efforts to realize the needed human goals of the efforts of Columbus and the followers of his intention. Thus, in the wake of the Habsburg tyranny over Central and South America generally, the realization of what had been Cusa’s intention was left to the Seventeenth-century initiative of the Mayflower and its Massachusetts Bay followers.

Thus, the U.S. Federal Constitution, like that Constitution’s leading heritage, which expressed the principle of a credit system, rather than an intrinsically imperialist monetarist system, has persisted, with a nudge from a gifted young genius and follower of the credit system of the Winthrops and Mathers, Alexander Hamilton, as being, still today, the credit system which is the unique, core principle of the U.S. Federal Constitution.

It is the implications of that crucial part of the relevant historical background, which supply us, today, with the design for the remedy implicitly demanded by Philip Angelides’ now celebrated report. Unfortunately, there are very, very few economists, even in the U.S.A. today, who have shown a competent grasp of, even an honest attempt to grasp, recently, that principle upon which our United States and its Constitution are founded.

I.CREDIT VERSUS MONETARISM

Currently, the United States of America has what are nominally many, and ever many more trillions of U.S. dollars of debt accumulated as what has been actually merely nominal wealth, as done under the “bail-out” policies launched since 2008. That has been a debt caused by the sabotage, by such as U.S. Representative Barney Frank’s complicity in, first, his part, as an accomplice of Federal Reserve Chairman, and former J.P. Morgan conspirator Alan Greenspan, in the 1999 repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, and, in Frank’s own part in a 2007 commitment to sabotage the remedy represented by my July 2007 Homeowners and Bank Protection Act. This now massively accumulated debt, is to be considered, in fact, as an absolutely worthless debt, or, what might be called “shadow money,” or money minted on the board game of Monopoly, when it is compared to the notion of what is an efficiently physical quality of value.

By “efficiently physical quality of value,” we must signify the notion of a “credit system,” as opposed to a “monetarist system,” a distinction in accord with the credit system introduced under the original charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and with the Hamiltonian notion of a credit system which was the original foundation of the crafting of the Federal Constitution of our United States.

As if to prove the wisdom of Hamilton’s part in creating our Federal Constitution, since that 2007-2008 sabotage February 24, 2011, the number of households subsisting on productive forms of employment, has collapsed at a presently hyperbolically-accelerated rate; at the same time, a nominal, essentially worthless debt denominated in the “shadow money,” comparable to mere gambling debts, has been accelerating upwards in the direction of many more than twenty-odd trillions of nominal dollars of worthless value.

In brief, it is to be said, that under those ever more worthless personalities, Presidents George W. Bush, Jr. and Barack Obama, the cumulative nominal debt of the U.S.A., and also the world at large, has skyrocketed over the lapsed time of those Presidents’ incumbencies, while, at the same time, the physically useful production and physicalstandards of existence of the citizens continue to plummet, at accelerating, hyper-inflationary rates, into the threatened prospect of an early, general physical-economic breakdown of not only the United States as a nation, but every nation of this planet.

In brief, what is about to happen, unless that is prevented now, would be a breakdown which, if it were to be continued as allowed, would represent the greatest planetary “dark age” in all known history to date.

Such a disastrous outcome is not inevitable; but, it will not be stopped, unless the actually available, appropriate countermeasures are set into motion now.

For example, under a continuation of the Presidency of Barack Obama, the situation of the people of the United States (among other peoples), were actually hopeless at this time. It were likely, that were he discharged under the appropriate provisions of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a recovery of the U.S. economy were possible, if, but only if that measure were now taken very soon.

However, under what happened to have been the elections of that pair of wretchedly incompetent U.S. Presidents, the dubious Bush and the impaired Obama, as in comparable problem-cases in other parts of the Americas, as in Europe, money is being transformed, and that at a currently accelerating rate, into the likeness of the play money of the dice-like-controlled game of “Monopoly.”

In this presently real-life “Monopoly-like” game being played out of the hands of high-ranking political fools today, some relatively “real money” is paid in, but, mostly, what is generated is merely “play-money” akin to that game’s internal provisions, as being uttered currently by such as the Federal Reserve System’s Alan Greenspan and Ben “Bubbles” Bernanke; money itself is becoming worthless. This swindle is fairly described as a matter of polluting the coffers with purely fictitious values, and, therefore, physically worthless assets of the hyper-inflationary bubble of cancerous “shadow banking,” which gobbles up more, and more of every remnant of what had been once been reasonably considered as value.

All of the so-called “bail out” funds, in addition to the unconscionable swindles which the Alan Greenspan administration of the Federal Reserve System had induced earlier, have represented an increasing accumulation of worthless debt piled upon a shrinking mass of actual values: a pure financial-speculative bubble from its roots in the cancellation of the fixed-exchange-rate system, into the general breakdown-crisis under way at the present time.

This process of decline, now over more than a decade in the trans-Atlantic region of the world, has brought us to not only the brink of a general collapse of the world’s monetary-financial bubble, not only a financial collapse, but a physical collapse in the means to sustain human life on anything near to the present level of the world’s population, a genocidal collapse in terms of both foodstuffs and comparable means.

These are times of an evil dream of “creative destruction,” as in a dream by a raving Friedrich Nietzschedying of syphilis in an unkempt attic. Simply said, the time has come, to create better times, where and when the venereal-like disease of “shadow money” spread by such “artful dodgers” as Representative Barney Frank, no longer destroys nations.

The actual founders of what became known as the American credit system, were such as the Winthrops and Mathers of Seventeenth-century Massachusetts. They, and their followers, such as the most notable Benjamin Franklin, with his notion of a paper currency, and with the added revolutionary achievement expressed by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton’s presentation of the great principle, that of credit, gave us the conception of public credit on which the unique advantage supplied by our Federal Constitution’s existence, continues to depend, to the present day.

This needed outlook for today, was reflected in popular language of the time, by Henry C. Carey’s 1838publication of his The Credit System.3(Philadelphia: Carey, Lea & Blanchard, Philadelphia 1838). In this chapter of the report, I shall present the physical principle which is expressed by the principle of the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s system of “the Pinetree Shilling,” the physical-scientific principle which underlies our republic’s relatively unique conception of public credit.

Today, looking back to such as such founders of what was to become our United States, as the Winthrops, the Mathers, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and the great American economist of Abraham Lincoln’s time, Henry C. Carey, we are presented with a record of an achievement, as under our President Franklin Roosevelt, which is essentially unique to the best periods of the origins and establishment of our United States; we are confronted, thus, with the notion of that principle of public credit, which is the currently indispensable quality of both our own constitutional tradition, and, presently, a policy expressed by the Glass-Steagall principle which was already inherent in our U.S. constitutional system. That is a principle which is presently the only hope of rescue, not only of our imperilled United States, but also for the specific form of conditions of the presently imperilled economies of both other parts of the Americas, Eurasia, and Africa.

Africa, for example, depends for its virtual existence upon the application of such a reform of the American and Eurasian systems to that same effect, now. The crashing of the levels of essential food-supplies was the primary motive for the existential quality of the political crisis spreading from not only Tunisia and Egypt, but the larger region of the Mediterranean littoral and far beyond, even inside our own United States at this present time of crisis.

The Vernadsky Factor

My mission in this chapter of the report, is to take the subject of the principle of the credit system (the system of public credit) to that higher level of what has become among the greatest achievements of modern physical science, those achievements of science which are presently typified by the work of Bernhard Riemann in such locations as his 1854 habilitation dissertation.4Bernhard Riemann, Über die Hypothesen, welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen (1854). The particular relevance of Riemann’s great discovery for our treatment of the principle of physical economy here, is best located, today, in the work of a follower of Riemann, the great modern scientific genius who emerged in the Twentieth Century, the Academician V.I. Vernadsky. Vernadsky, in taking into account his notion of “the Noösphere,” was among the most consequential of Riemann’s followersfor our present knowledge in matters bearingon the physical principles defining the uniquely specific nature and requirements of the continued existence and life of our human species.5Although Vernadsky credits Teilhard de Chardin with the minting of the term “noösphere,” the descriptive term as minted by Chardin, does not reach any of the much deeper, essential, principled features of Vernadsky’s systemically Riemannian contributions under the use of this term.

Vernadsky’s discovery of the universal physical principle of the Noösphere, presents us, today, with the essential link needed to define that physical principle of human creativity on which a scientifically, fully competent notion of the economic value attributable to a traditionally American credit-system presently depends.

As the argument developed below will show, this fresh approach is indispensable for achieving any deep insight into the nature, and available cure of the global crisis reaching throughout our world, and, implicitly, beyond, today.

The Use of Our Constitution

What I have already begun to report in this location, does not, in itself, contradict those definitions of a science of physical economy on which the crafting of the U.S. Federal Constitution was implicitly already based. Nonetheless, the present world crisis is already of such a qualitative, deep-going nature, and so calamitous in its implications for all mankind, that what was sufficiently convenient for the Winthrops and Mathers, or for Benjamin Franklin, and for Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton in their respective times, does not yet treat, explicitly, those far deeper implications of that physical science of economy which we must come to know as the urgently needed, more advanced basis for the set of remedies required for present crisis-conditions.

We are now confronted, as in this time of my report here, with an onrushing, international, already hyper-inflationary, general breakdown-crisis throughout the trans-Atlantic region of the planet, in which the leading emphasis is already to be placed, as I have noted a few paragraphs earlier, on immediate remedies for a horrifying, hyperinflation-driven, soaring of prices attached to a deliberately designed process of a dwindling supply of essential food. The needed price and distribution controls required against predatory practices of speculation in essentials of personal life, must be installed and maintained now; but, that is only an indispensable condition of the present moment.

It should also be recognized that such urgent real-life issues presented to us immediately, today, differ greatly in essential features of quality from that sense of day-to-day reality which still existed up to the point of the Spring 1968 and later riots on leading university campuses. In earlier times, especially prior to events such as the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the consequent onset of the approximately decade-long U.S. warfare in the Indo-China region, the world outlook of what might be reported as the perception of economic and social values of the majority adult population then, was then still colored with echoes of the popular values associated with the then-already fading memories of an outlook on life under the Kennedy Presidency.

That is to emphasize, that there was, at one time past, a correlation among physical values in society, and, accompanying that, a certain degree of correlation of the needed qualities of knowledge which have now been lost to a very large degree, among the population born since the death of President Kennedy. Since that time, there has been a downturn into the existentialist plunge into the moral depravity of the 1968ers, a quality of depravity like that of the adopted depravity of Bertolt Brecht’s Threepenny Opera.

We have been plunged, so, into the Inferno of sheer madness, a madness typified inside the United States by a recent outbreak which erupted to shock Tucson, Arizona. We are no longer representative of a culture in which a sense of a concern for the promotion of moral worth, dominates the behavior of our population. We are dealing, today, with a cultural nightmare, a so-called “post-industrial” state in North America and Europe, in which the majority, of rich and poor alike, no longer have better than a tenuous access to the existence of anything which actually corresponds to a reality worth living.

This physical-economic and also moral degradation, is what we must now change, suddenly, now.

Since the passing of the few years of the U.S. John F. Kennedy Administration, we of the trans-Atlantic cultural domain have lost more and more of what had been our outstanding role among the nations of the world for that domain’s superior accomplishments as an actually productive society. Already, since the Presidency of Harry S Truman, and even more dramatically since the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert Kennedy, the culture of our United States devolved by aid of successive giant steps downwards, through those “degenerations” in a population which has been more, and more inclined to the outlooks and behavior of a post-productive society.

We have been gripped by the becoming of a depraved, Dionysian sort of existentialist “entertainment culture.” This had been a degeneracy of culture which had, during the 1960s and beyond, first, explored its nakedness, and, later covered over the follies which it saw, the latter with an hysteria as ferocious in its appetites as that earlier for the display of one’s own and other peoples’ genitalia.

Thus, we are the members of a society which is becoming, in practice, either merely indifferent, or, especially, as under Presidents George W. Bush, Jr. and Barack Obama, outrightly hostile to the notion of the values of a physically productive society possessed of the fitness to survive. The sense is, that the present moment of the world is one of “the last chance” to reverse the direction from that of more than four decades, especially the two most recent; your world today has become a nightmare, an “Inferno” in the increasing likeness of the fabled “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.”

Can it be possible, still now, that, despite all this, life today holds some hope of the better for mankind generally? Consider some salient facts bearing on that question, and also bearing on the nature of our Federal Constitution as to be seen more clearly through the role of Alexander Hamilton’s crafting of the most essential principle on which the crafting of the Constitution was premised.

A large part of that susceptibility of our United States, and also other nations, to the general decline of the economies of the entire trans-Atlantic sector, is to be located as the immediately preceding remarks have emphasized. This involves the presently prevailing, but actually pathological belief in the notion that money correlates, in some way, according to the notion that something akin to money represents a value in itself.

Take as an example, the case of the “bail-out,” launched in the U.S.A. in 2008; it was completely a fraud, perpetrated, actually, on the initiative expressed by the career of the Alan Greenspan who was determined to destroy our United States’ system, from a time not later than his early 1980s role as a agent of J.P. Morgan working to destroy the Glass-Steagall law, as continued through his ruinous, implicitly treasonous role as U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman. Greenspan’s initiatives were always a campaign to destroy the protection of the value of U.S. currency through an implicitly treasonous cancellation of the Glass-Steagall law. Greenspan’s role to this effect typifies the continuation, since the U.S. Nixon Administration, of the phase of process of ruin of the U.S. dollar, as expressed by such cases in point as Greenspan’s role over the course of that period of Greenspan’s role with J.P. Morgan, to the present time.

Indeed, the only way in which the United States could prevent the total destruction of that nation by the very sick kind of current law enacted under both President George W. Bush, Jr. and President Barack Obama, would be, essentially, to remove President Obama from office under the relevant provisions of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Federal Constitution, and to proceed immediately under a revival of the original 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which must release the proceeding to the exemplary implementation of the North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA)—but, more on that later.

The Liberals’ Refusal To Reform

On the surface of the current trends in public practice, the leading argument against a return to the 1933 U.S. Glass-Steagall Law on which the survival of the U.S. economy had then depended, is that that reform suffers the merely apparent fault, that the presently reigning financier system of the trans-Atlantic region, on which the worthless swindlers of the world depend currently for their sense of pleasurable power, would immediately collapse.

In fact, Glass-Steagall would have precisely such an effect for those international financial systems such as that associated with the current, British imperial, Inter-Alpha Group and its offspring. However, the more relevant point is, that, all relevant facts considered, without a return to the U.S.A.’s Glass-Steagall standard, civilization would soon cease to exist throughout the entirety of this planet. The choices of alternatives should be, therefore, obvious, if and when we consider the interests of human beings, rather than those of the usurers.

As I have written on earlier occasions, the bankrupting of the British imperial financial system need not be a disaster for the population of those Islands. Quite the contrary. We would promptly supply them with emergency support for the establishment of a credit system, to occupy the place of their already virtually defunct, Inter-Alpha Group-based monetarist system. Admittedly, this would be the end of the British empire, but the Britons would be the leaner, healthier, and, ultimately, of better disposition, for the change.

Under these present circumstance, the best which could be said of the present world monetarist system, is that it is in no sense worth saving. The adoption of a credit system, as defined in the design of the American System of political-economy, can create a viable new banking system consistent with the Glass-Steagall law, that as if “almost instantaneously;” even an international fixed-exchange-rate credit system, one based on the American principle of public credit, as Alexander Hamilton did in the composition of our Federal Constitution; our Federal Constitution implicitly demands precisely that nested set of previously proven as successful reforms, once more, now.

Looking at the same matter from a different standpoint, the wiping out of the kinds of banking systems hostile to the Glass-Steagall reform, is the only present condition under which civilization could survive at this time of global crisis. Without the equivalent of Glass-Steagall, civilization itself would now soon disappear, not only among the nations within or bounding the trans-Atlantic nations; the general-breakdown form of collapse would be carried into the Asia regions with monstrously devastating consequences there.6In deference to Stephen Vincent Benet’s “The Devil and Daniel Webster,” I would not say, “Come up to Scratch.”

The collapse of that present, speculative element in financial banking practices, would be a blessing to humanity.

Look at the latter aspect of the prospect; but, first, consider the relevant trend in world economic history since the death of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt.

The avowed intention of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt had been, that, when the great war of 1939-1945 would have come to an end, the great productive power being built-up for the conduct of war against the Nazis and their nominal Japan ally, would be unleashed for the greatest wave of productive improvements in the political and economic conditions of life the world had yet known.

With the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, that policy was not only abandoned; the opposite direction was chosen by a U.S. Truman Administration operating under the British imperial guidance of the imperialist Winston Churchill and his British Labour Party successor Clement Attlee. The policy which was imposed upon the United States itself, under the Truman Administration, was a policy of what is called economic “creative destruction,” a Nietzschean conception translated into its expression as an economic policy under Nietzsche’s followers such as the Nazi period’s economist Werner Sombart, and such successors of Werner Sombart from the so-called “Austrian School,” as Britain’s and Harvard University’s Joseph Schumpeter, and, then, such Schumpeter followers as my defeated opponent in a celebrated debate, Professor Abba Lerner. Such is also Larry Summers, the latter lately of the Administration of President Barack Obama.

With the arrival of Winston Churchill’s “patsy” Harry S Truman into his British-lackey-like role, came what was actually to be recognized as a British sort of “fascist” policy, one which served as the customary habit associated with the British imperial policy of Churchill, Truman, Attlee and their successors. The policy of Dionysian Hellishness which Nietzsche had bestowed upon Adolf Hitler’s practice, had come back to what were properly to be recognized as the British imperial origins of Lord Shelburne’s crew, and now more than a decade under the roles of recent U.S. Presidents George W. Bush, Jr., and Barack Obama.

The Creation of Wealth’s Creation

Recently, one among my associates from our science-driver “Basement Team,” Cody Jones, served as the producer of a just under a three-quarters of an hour’s broadcast of a summary of the chemistry of the evolution of life on Earth, from primitive one-celled forms of life into higher forms of life operating under the protection of the so-called “ozone layer.”7www.larouchepac.com/node/17323 The factors employed in bringing about this development of the conditions of higher forms of life on Earth, include a crucial role of our galaxy in efficiently shaping the preconditions for the shaping of the evolution of life on our planet, and, thus, within Earth, within our Solar system, and, in turn, under the reign of our galaxy. In brief: the known biological history of the universe shows itself to be an intrinsically anti-entropic process, in which a so-called “Second Law of Thermodynamics” never actually existed as an intrinsic law of nature.

These facts have crucial importance for understanding the nature and source of the grave errors of practice, which have been common to many known, entire human cultures. It is those arbitrary, systemically false beliefs in a so-called “Second Law of Thermodynamics,” which account for certain among the worst offenses of entire cultures against mankind, in the present time, as in the past. These notions of that superstitious belief and its likenesses, have been systemic follies of the type which are expressed by the errant, but nonetheless still widespread belief in a fraudulent, so-called “Second Law.”

This fallacy, as often identified by that modern, pseudo-scientific title, is actually what has been known as a commonplace manifestation to be recognized as such in all of the more or less thorough studies of the known history of sundry cultures of mankind. Its political history is best understood from the vantage-point of studies of what is popularly known as Classical Greek civilization. In studies of ancient Classical Mediterranean literature, it is well known as the issue of the quarrel between the evil Olympian Zeus and Prometheus. Still within the period of Classical ancient Mediterranean civilization, it is known as the subject of the devastating attack on Aristotle by that celebrated Philo of Alexandria who is otherwise famous as “Philo Judaeus,” the associate of the Christian Apostles Peter and Mark.

The notable point to be emphasized in that connection as bearing on our subject here, is Philo’s detailed denunciation of the fraud of Aristotle concerning Creation. Aristotle had insisted, at least implicitly so, that the process of Creation of the Universe, the Mosaic doctrine according to the first chapter of Genesis, was in error in assuming that the process of creation of the universe had not stopped at a point prior to the appearance of mankind.

Aristotle’s argument had insisted that the Creator himself had lost the power to continue creating once an initial, finite step of creation had been completed: this was the same Aristotelean argument which served as the precedent for Friedrich Nietzsche’s copy of the Dionysian cult’s cry of “God is dead!” This cry of the pro-Satanic cult of Dionysus, is best known as the hallmark of the process of degenerations in European civilizations known since the reign of ancient Babylon, as also of the Apollo-Dionysus cult of the unholy Delphi.

What confronts us in the argument of Aristotle, is, in one part, myth, but, at the same time, is a very real kind of extant policy, a policy known historically as “the oligarchical principle.” It is the same anti-humanistic policy we know as the dogma launched as the fraud of Silent Spring, the satanic “Bible” of the “greenie” cult, and, of course, the Dionysian cult of such as Nietzsche’s fascist “creativity as destruction” thesis which is otherwise typical of the existentialist cults of the present day, and of existentialist economists such as Sombart and Schumpeter.

The essential precondition for the continued existence of a civilized form of human life, is an anti-entropic principle of continuing increase of the energy-flux density of human economic practice per capita and per square kilometer of territory. Any policy, or merely the practice of virtual “zero growth,” or blocks against increase of the applied energy-flux density of production and basic economic infrastructure per capita and per square kilometer, is the practice of a crime against humanity, a crime known as genocide, the crime associated with the British monarchy’s Prince Philip and his avowedly pro-genocidal World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

The total defeat of the intention expressed by the WWF is the foremost of the goals which define morality. Franklin Roosevelt understood this principle in his opposition to both the British empire and the Wall Street gang which, like the British monarchy under Edward VIII, had backed Adolf Hitler until the Wehrmacht had overrun France, and whose British and Wall Street descendants represent Hitler-like population policies again today.

II.BEYOND THE FDR REVOLUTION

Look, for a moment or so, at the difference between what human beings actually are, and what we can recognize, if we really try to understand the meaning of the existence ofboth the human species and what most people, even most among the very rare persons who are truly thoughtful ones, imagine that we are. For example.

A man says of himself, “I deserve respect.” Respect for what? Look at what those among us who know something of a few hundred thousand years of human existence think is the meaning of a self-conscious human life. What does that mean from the vantage-point of what a Creator might think of the human species, of the purpose of mankind’s existence in the universe, and, hence, the meaning of the existence of an individual human life?

Think of the subject of human mortality. Why might some think that a great Classical artist or scientist is dead, merely because their mortal life is completed? Do some persons not actually create the idea of newly created states of the efficient effects of the self-development of the creative powers of the human mind? Is it not that case, that that creative aspect of the existence of that creative mind continues to act efficiently on the potential conditions of all human life, implicitly forever? It is the soul which neither created such a discovery, nor assimilated that discovery in ways passed to the living as in perpetuity, which has come to an end with death.

Think, then, as I do, about the state of human life on the planet at this time, and, at the same time, see the virtually criminal mind of those persons who, for one foolish reason or another, refuse to recognize how useless, or even worse than useless, the existence of a Wall Street or comparable British life might be, as we might imagine the standpoint of a Creator. Do we never ask ourselves:“What is the meaning of the existence of the human individual from the standpoint of the creative processes which define the existence of what we are presently enabled to know concerning the true functional meaning of mankind in the universe?” Look at what each of us might think to be the purpose of our existence in the universal scheme of things, if we reflect on what a scientific view might show us to be the attributable purpose for mankind’s existence in this universe.

Must we think of ourselves as like some kind of wind-up toy, with a built-in programmed design, such that we behave according to something like the mechanisms of a wind-up manufactured toy, even a merely mechanical toy, without even a thought about the possible justification for our existence beyond that mere program which we might attribute as built into our virtual mechanical operating design as like a mechanical toy?

The advantage of progress in a physical-scientific view of mankind, in the light of such considerations, is the combination of what we, as in the “basement team” are presently enabled to know, as contrasted with the usual concerns of those among our fellow-humans who, shall we say, “take the meaning of human life for granted,” human life as something we act out even according to pre-programmed rules, with little thought, or no thought at all, about the meaning of this universe, or the human personality within it.

There is a purpose in the existence of this universe. Whether we actually know that purpose, or not, that purpose exists. When we view such concerns from what little we actually know about the existence of the universe within the galaxy with which life on our planet, within this Solar system, is associated, we are provided with evidence which shows us patterns of a design within that aspect of the universe, and, thus, a distant intimation of the purpose which makes this universe tick. What are we, and what is the purpose of our existence, as adducible from that vantage-point?

The best thing that the more fortunate among us do know, is just that. In this chapter of the present report as being written here, I feature a crucial point, as follows.

What must we think, then, of some poor collection of fools associated with the British monarchy or what we have learned to despise, if we are actually moral, about Wall Street? About that essentially silly appendage of relatively recent millennia of history as that British monarchy? Does a Wall Street creature have a soul with an identifiable purpose in life within the processes which affect a conscious form of human life within this galaxy? How much distance, or perhaps better said, how little, actually exists, if at all, between the manner in which President Barack Obama functions, and the actions of a defective product of the assembly-line for a type of mechanical wind-up, or electrical, or gas-powered toy?

What we among the better informed of the inhabitants of our planet know, is a modest bit of true knowledge in respect to such matters, but there is accessible to us something about that which we are presently enabled to know, however modest that may be.

The best thing to be known, among those thoughts which can be accepted with the most ruthless self-critical view of the intent driving our existence as human individuals, is that the universe has a manifest purpose in its sense of anti-entropic direction. That purpose is true creativity in and of itself, or, otherwise, a compelling sense of the nature and meaning of true creativity. The best of the presently available knowledge among us now, is a sense of the fact that what we might best name “pure creativity,” is the principle expressed by the universe in general, and by those intrinsically anti-entropic creative powers which distinguish the potential of the individual human personality, as Academician V.I. Vernadsky has shown, from the beasts and mechanical toys alike.

As long as you do not believe that is the case, and are not motivated by that knowledge, you are bereft of all but scant knowledge of the appropriate purpose or other general meaning of your own existence, and, therefore, find yourself tempted by enchanting fairy tales which are merely the consoling lies you tell yourselves and your neighbors. You are left to amuse yourself sufficiently to keep one plugging along, like a typically miserable existentialist operating on a kind of morality which does not much exceed the imagination of a creature suffering the disorders of a factory reject on the production-line of life.

Human creativity, as we know it best thus far, is the quality of conscience which guides one among us to a tenacious grip on practicing a life which is meaningful in the assigned mission of human life within this universe. All which is contrary to that is pathetic self-deception. We may rightly believe such things as the best among us do, as we may sometimes say, “Moses and the prophets;” we believe this becausewe know that these thoughts, however imperfectly grasped, are reflections of that truth which must become our mission in life within this galaxy, and, hence, within this universe. Love of mankind, expressed with the passion of scientific discovery and creative Classical artistic composition, are testaments to a true principle, such that, from that vantage-point, we sense the essential quality of knowable truth. Not only do we “go on, living,” but we are overjoyed by the fact of every minute of the experience of that process.

Learn from history.

Had President Franklin Roosevelt lived to steer the post-World War II world’s recovery, Churchill’s and Wall Street’s political whore, Harry S Truman (no middle name, only a naked “S”), would not have been able to turn the fate of the post-war world in favor of that same old British empire which President Franklin Roosevelt had avowed it to be his intention to eliminate, as the last of those imperialist systems, led by the Churchill at that time.

The offenders included other agents of the British empire, including the same Wall Street gang which had earlier nourished a mistaken, wishful view, a view which, mistakenly, deluded itself into relying upon the presumption of Adolf Hitler’s presumed intention to attack the Soviet Union first. That was the silly view among the British and the Wall Street gang’s pro-fascists such as Brown Brothers Harriman, which continued until the Wehrmacht had overrun a France whose command had lacked the will and competence to defend itself against an attack which the British, French, Belgian, and Dutch governments had presumed would be made manageable, if it ever came, by the effects of German losses expected on the Soviet front, during the time those “Western” allies were waiting for a Germany which they were confident would be greatly weakened in its attack on the depths of Soviet territory.8The war-time memoirs of General Charles de Gaulle prompt relevant insights into this matter, and of Marc Bloch’s Strange Defeat (London: Oxford University Press, 1946).

Instead, the Wehrmacht promptly disappointed the allied nations of Europe west of Nazi Germany’s border, and used the relatively easy pickings it found in France, to acquire the strength, through the looting of France, both to avoid the familiar German command’s fear of a war on two fronts, and to build up the forces intended for the later attack on the Soviet Union, once the defeat of France had been reasonably secured for a time.9In what was called “The First World War,” the concern of the German command was the need to cripple the advance of the Russian forces moving to attack Germany from the east, while German forces were already being subjected to a mobilization against them on the western front. In the “second world war,” the considerations were somewhat different, but the point to be made remains clear, nonetheless. There are comparable implications in the case of the Soviet commitment to conducting the battle at Stalingrad. The U.S. logistical support for the Soviet Union in this period leading to the Wehrmacht’s defeat at Stalingrad, was a most crucial development in the entirety of “World War II.” The principles of physical geometry expressed by Prussian strategy in aid of the Russian tactic of defense against Napoleon’s forces, was a comparable consideration, again, in Soviet defense during World War II. A comparable case was the trap set for the U.S. forces in the war launched by the U.S.A. in Indo-China, despite both President Kennedy’s and General Douglas MacArthur’s warnings against the trap implicit in a “land war in Asia,” a warning which should be regarded as a later case expressing the same principle. British-directed U.S. land wars in west Asia are comparable types of folly, and we take into account that the British have sometimes sacrificed their own forces out of the desire for the damage incurred by the United States, as in two wars in Iraq and Barack Obama’s lunatic folly in Afghanistan.

Thus, the facts of post-1890 warfare in Europe (and beyond) and the essentials of the intervening two decades between two so-called “world wars” of the 1914-1945 interval, are to be reconsidered by us now, with that one exception, as a single, continuing 1890-1945 process, whose consequences are to be judged as a single process insofar as they bear directly on the post-World War II developments as such. In fact, the entire interval, 1890-2011 to date, is to be recognized as being a single historical fact in terms of its origins and its consequences up to, and beyond the present date.

In my reference to an “intervening set of those two war-time periods,” the reason I have referenced the background from 1890 through “World War I,” and to the two decades between those “world wars,” was done in order to fill necessary background for understanding the bearing of the British preparatory steps to the warfare of the 1890-1917 interval for understanding the warfare of the entire interval 1890-1917 as a set-up for both World War II and Winston Churchill’s and Bertrand Russell’s combined roles in their launching the planning for world-wide nuclear warfare over, speaking technically, the interval 1946-1989, and its aftermath. In the entire period 1890-2011, nothing as much as the geopolitical issue itself has shaped the global behavior of the British empire and its accomplices.

Re-examine that history.

What became known, popularly, as “the Great War” of 1914-17, had been frankly admitted, from its actual 1890 beginning, as a British intention to launch world-wide warfare which was a reaction to the intentions of Germany and Russia to develop, in Eurasia, a system of transcontinental railway systems modeled upon the prior achievement of the United States, most emphatically the geopolitical issue posed by the U.S. transcontinental railway system. The “environmentalist” role of President Theodore Roosevelt in launching his treasonous “environmentalist” policies in the western land-areas of the U.S. territory itself, and Theodore Roosevelt’s role as both a crony of H.G. Wells and as a de facto British agent in the Portsmouth arrangements respecting the British-Japan war of 1905 against Russia, are exemplary.

From the start, the British intention behind what became known as its unique responsibility for the creation of “World War I,” was frankly confessed by them to have been “geopolitical issues;” the crucial “geopolitical” issue among these was not only the development of the U.S. transcontinental railway system, but the echo of this achievement in Germany and in Russia. These two, respectively German and Russian developments defined the core of the so-called “geopolitical” issues which were the direct cause of World War I launched by the British empire over so-called “geopolitical issues.” The extension of the successful rise of the United States to a world economic power, which taken together with the rallying of Germany and Russia, among others, to the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial Exposition, signified that the imperial form of global, imperialist maritime power of the British Empire could not match the accelerating rates of productivity achieved through transcontinental railway systems which vastly outclassed ocean transport in economic efficiency. That was the “geopolitical issue” as the British empire defined its motives for its criminal role in building up the post 1890 preparations of a continuing, world-wide geopolitical war against the United States and its continental Eurasia partners up through the present date.

From the standpoint of actually witting American patriots, President Franklin Roosevelt’s intentions for the post-war world, had he lived, had been centered on his intention to bring to an end those conditions, which had been created by the British Empire for the included purpose of destroying the United States’ independence of Britain’s mechanisms of Wall Street control.

The central feature of FDR’s intention to this end, had been a combination of the use of the projected United Nations as the vehicle for bringing the Soviet Union and China into a global partnership for economic development among the nations of the planet. The practicality of this venture lay in the notion of an interdependence of the nation’s use of the build-up of the war-time capabilities of the United States under President Franklin Roosevelt, for the purpose of converting the potentially idled portion of the high-energy-flux density mode of increase of that productive capacity which had been ensconced in production for war, now to be applied, with relatively continued levels of full economic force, for programs of post-war economic reconstruction. These programs were aimed, by intention, for elimination of the pre-existing colonialist and related imperialist systems of Europe and beyond, with the intent to create a community of respectively sovereign nation-states assisted in developing themselves as fully sovereign nation-states of a world-wide system of nothing but sovereign nation-states.

These conditions of that time have defined the British commitment to secure the destruction of both our United States and the principle represented by its Constitution.

Our intended outcome, was what the British empire would not tolerate. The death of President Franklin Roosevelt was, therefore, a most convenient event from the vantage-point of such “blokes” among World War II British imperialists as Winston Churchill, the monstrously satanic Bertrand Russell, and the British imperial Royal household.

I repeat, that these issues were not original to the close of the post-World War II situation, nor have these issues ever gone away, up to the present day.

In the early 1890s, a group of nations, led by the British empire and the Mikado of that time, had entered into an agreement to launch a new war against China, a war set into motion about 1894, which continued into World War I, and was continued in principle up to the surrender of Japan in 1945. That alliance of the British empire and Japan had been refreshed at the beginning of the 1920s, by their agreement to ruin the naval power of the United States, an agreement which included the development of Japan naval forces in the Pacific into sufficient strength for an intended attack by both Japan and the British navy, on both the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, and a comparable, coordinated attack on the U.S. Atlantic fleet.10The ironical fact is, that, for as long as Britain was implicitly a backer of the creation of the Nazi takeover of Germany, the anti-U.S.A. alliance of Britain and Japan continued in effect. When Britain was impelled to “adjust” its then outstanding alliances after the Fall of France, the British alliance with Japan against the U.S.A. became complicated, to say the least. Japan reacted by turning to its “Plan B,” attacks on both the U.S.A. and the British and related interests in the Asia-Indian Ocean sector. The actual launching of the Japan attack on Pearl Harbor came as a “wrenching” quality of last-minute final decision to go ahead, a decision echoed in character by a “last minute, existentialist quality of final decision” to proceed. One must not overlook the fact that, as of the 1920s, major naval forces were still the force of choice for “mass destruction” of a rival strategic power.

If we recognize that Truman was essentially a Churchill- and rather long-standing Wall Street, pro-Nazi leading puppet, “recolonization” replaced President Roosevelt’s commitment to freeing the captive nations, including Europe’s former colonies, by means of the capabilities expressed in the potential for the greater part of what could have been an accelerating process of economic self-development of once-captive nations of the British-led imperial systems. Truman’s slavish, implicitly virtually treasonous bending to Churchill’s policy, carried with it the Truman policy of sharp cutbacks in that conversion of the war-time capabilities of industrial and related development, and destroying the vast program of vast “infrastructure” undertakings combined with the accelerated development of the productive powers of labor, and standard of living among the peoples which had been entrapped into menial service to European, especially British colonialist interests.

To understand those post-war developments, we must not overlook the point that Wall Street’s and Churchill’s virtual puppet Harry S Truman, was an expression of the politics of a period of the World War I legacy of Ku Klux Klan fanatic Woodrow Wilson, and of the Wall Street-centered monetary interests under U.S. Presidents Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover, as this was typified by the J.P. Morgan interest, as, in parallel, by such creators of the Adolf Hitler regime as the Bank of England’s Montagu Norman, a Montagu Norman who was a leading figure guiding the backing of Adolf Hitler, personally, by Hjalmar Schacht, Brown Brothers Harriman, and related Wall Street interests.

The Tukhachevsky Syndrome

An important fact pertaining to exactly that point, which is to be taken from the 1930s, but which is often overlooked, is a fact which is crucial for understanding the post-World War II conditions: the now usually overlooked matter of Josef Stalin’s assignment to Marshall Tukhachevsky to seek to enlist either England or France into a preventive defense against the Wehrmacht threat. This included a feature developed under Tukhachevsky of a massing of a relatively vast magnitude of Russian parachutists’ drops to act in alliance against the Hitler forces. Both London and Paris rejected such an alliance, and Tukhachevsky was shot. This case must be taken into account to understand fully the relevant features of the run-up into the Wehrmacht’s overrunning France, and the circumstances under which Europe and the U.S.A. entered the post-war world.

The policy of the British and French governments of that time, and slightly later, and also, naturally, Wall Street, too, of the period leading into 1940, had presumed that an effective Wehrmacht attack on France and Belgium would never come. According to their foolish estimate, Germany would be bled into weakness on the plains of Eastern Europe, without ever troubling France and Britain significantly.

Think back to the German design for a war policy of Russia’s defense against Napoleon’s forces, a design which succeeded in destroying Napoleon’s power, a design for Russia’s defense which was not forgotten by the Soviet leadership in World War II, as in the “Stalingrad effect.”

The Allied Anglo-French policy going into 1939-1940, had been the doctrine of the “Western Wall,” the presumption that the threat of attack from the Wehrmacht would have begun after the Wehrmacht had been bled into weakness on the Soviet front. This was also the Wall Street Liberal’s view of the matter, as the case of the silly, London-connected Walter Lippmann’s arguments on this matter has illustrated. The British and French were prepared to re-fight World War I, not the reality of the Wehrmacht’s World War II. Without the actions of President Franklin Roosevelt and the Soviet mobilization, neither Britain nor France would exist today.

Were Wall Street, Britain, and France all stupid in these matters shaping much of the post-war world’s realities? Not exactly; their misjudgment was a matter of what might be fairly termed as being the problematic features of their species-instinct, not reason. They might have been clever, but their cleverness was working for the wrong species. The British empire, as customary for it since the Seven Years War of 1756-63, and as it had collaborated with Prince Metternich in the period of the British-Habsburg managing of Napoleon Bonaparte’s wars on the European continent, was playing everybody against everyone on the European continent, all for the sake of the intended triumph and the glory of a British Empire, a new Roman Empire, which Britain’s Lord Shelburne had intended should be eternal. Their intention was as clear as it was malicious, but their minds’ outlook was muddied with fatuous imperial delusions.

Culturally speaking, the British empire was the wrong species for realizing the intentions of the actually human race, and the British monarchy remains just that, still, today. The issue today is to be found among a bag-full of fools, including the brutish British of today; the essential issue is not who will lose, but, who will survive. If the leadership is located in a U.S.A. of a President Obama, it is virtually certain that we would not survive, unless Obama were removed to safe-keeping, in protection from his own enraged and cheated former supporters, as under Section 4 of the U.S. 25th Amendment.

Even during the past time of a U.S.A. and British alliance for the proper aims of World War II, the British were already using that collaboration under war-time conditions, to prepare an assault on the sovereignty of our United States.

However, to understand the geopolitical warfare of the interval from 1890 to the present moment, we must approach the subject of that interval from an overview of the aftermath of the great ecumenical Council of Florence, both in the effects associated with that Council, but also the contending factions among the pro-oligarchical factions seeking to destroy the work of the Council at that time. The history of an extended modern European culture now extends beyond a half a millennium, in and of itself; this past century, to the extent that we can account for important developments within so limited a framework as that, can not be competently represented, even respecting the significant cultural and economic issues of today, without taking into account the tightly-interlaced, kaleidoscopic mesh of transformations which have occurred within the full breadth of the ancient through present-day history of European and closely related developments in civilization.

To wit: consider the crucial role of Jeanne d’Arc for its bearing on the future of France and the development of that great ecumenical Council of Florence which was, in itself, a crucially determining aspect of all modern European history. The complexities of the religious warfare of the 1492-1648 precedent for the Peace of Westphalia, for the emergence of the Fourth Roman Empire, that for the New Venetian Party which took over England to create the foundations of a British Empire which dominates the planet as a monetarist imperialism still today.

This features the crucial importance of the American Revolution, the aftermath of the French Revolution, the wars and economic revolutions of the Nineteenth Century, and, so on, up to the point of the presently devastating global economic crisis, a mass of interlinked processes, none of which could be competently considered apart from the others over the course of no less than nearly six centuries, from the early Sixteenth-century Councils of the Papacy through the crucial, revolutionary developments centered on the great ecumenical Council of Florence, to the present world of what is now threatened to become a terminal crisis of mankind’s society in general, and the trans-Atlantic regions most immediately and most emphatically.

Thus, those who fail to pay close attention to the complexly intertwined history of that global span, will not be remembered, if at all, as of any memorable significance in the life of coming generations.

Those facts from the past so considered up to this point, where do we go next? We must turn to my own personal, and uniquely successful specialty as a successful forecaster, back to a competent notion of economic science coherent with the set of accomplishments associated with the combined work of Bernhard Riemann and Academician V.I. Vernadsky, most notably.

The Subject of Abelian Functions

The key to any competent physical science of political-economy, now depends upon a special contribution to understanding the tormented millennial history of our planet’s past. To that end, we are obliged to feature the inclusion of an adopted tool for study of economic processes, a subject which is known in the trade as “Abelian functions.” This is a subject which was developed into a crucially significant escape from what had been the most crucial of the stubborn methodological pitfalls of the application of a merely formal mathematics to physical science generally. As Bernhard Riemann put this point in the concluding sentence of his celebrated 1854 habilitation dissertation, “We must be led into the realm of another science, the science of physics, which the nature of today’s proceedings [in the department of mathematics] do not permit us to enter.”11“Es führt dies hinüber in das Gebiet einer andern Wissenschaft, in das Gebiet der Physik, welches wohl die Natür der heutigen Veranlassung nicht zu betreten erlaubt.” Werke, p. 286.

The essential mathematical physics of Abelian functions, as by Bernhard Riemann and his teacher Lejeune Dirichlet, is aptly presented in those two authors’ locations. However, in keeping with Bernhard Riemann’s famous conclusion on the subject of mathematics per se, in his 1854 habilitation dissertation, the proper extraction to be adduced from the subject of Abelian functions lies, as Riemann insists, within the domain of physics, rather than an essentially formal mathematics.

Such were the premises on which both Dirichlet and his former student Riemann, emphasized: the challenge of treating problems which lie outside the deductive powers of mathematics as such, and which define anti-entropic states of physical existence, as the general concept of this is presented, in ontological terms of reference, by the great follower of Riemann, Academician V.I. Vernadsky, as in Vernadsky’s principled definition of the distinctions among the Lithosphere, Biosphere, and Noösphere.

All significant expressions of such Riemannian functions, excepting those which are relatively scientifically trivial, such as merely mathematical ones, represent intrinsically anti-entropic physical states which lie outside the bounds of a system which conforms with an Aristotelean-Euclidean space of universal entropy.

Since such as Aristotle and Euclid, as Riemann had already emphasized in opening that same dissertation, a formal mathematics, such as that coherent with Euclidean geometry, precludes an actually competent entrance into the domain of the higher realm of physical principles in which the actual existence of science is to be located. This problem had been illustrated in a certain, special kind of way by Carl F. Gauss’s honest, but at the same time evasive approach to accounting for his numerous discoveries in the domain of universal physical principles, as in, for example, the case of his discovery of the orbit of Ceres, or his replies to Farkas Bolyai on the subject of Janos Bolyai’s, and N. Lobatchevski’s defective approach to the subject-matter of a “non-Euclidean geometry.”12Several references from Gauss’s correspondence are sufficient here: (1) Gauss to C.I. Gerling, Feb. 14, 1832, and July 14, 1844; and (2), to Farkas Bolyai (on the subject of Lobatchevski) Mar. 6, 1832.

Otherwise, the problem here is of the same genre as Philo of Alexandria’s treatment of the fraudulent character of Aristotle’s insistence on what Friedrich Nietzsche also said in asserting that “God is dead.” Nietzsche’s reliance on Aristotle’s wild-eyed assertion, is commonly encountered today under the caption of a “Second Law of Thermodynamics.” Contrary to the popular cult of devotion to entropy, the universe is nothing but triumphant ontological expressions of creativity. However, in this realm, the attempt to substitute mathematics for physics is a terrible failure, an expression of an ontological failure.

So, the challenge of creating a use of mathematics which did not fail on account of the fallacy of forms of mathematics such as those of the Aristotelean school, required a method of treating actually serious subjects of experimental physical science by discovery of an employable method which had been lacking prior to the prompting, beneficial effects of Niels Abel’s work for Lejeune Dirichlet and his protégé Bernhard Riemann: hence, Abelian functions, and their central position in the work of Riemannian physics.

To come as near to layman’s knowledge as accuracy will permit, any actual discovery of a universal physical principle, represents a defining of the physical universe in terms pertaining to the emergence of a relatively higher qualitative state of physical existence than had been known to exist earlier. In brief: the universe is intrinsically anti-entropic, as even the history of life on Earth attests this to be true. We “use up” the resources we deplete for the sake of our progress, which requires us to develop revolutionary changes in human practice, changes which involve, typically, an increase of the energy-flux-density applied by mankind, per capita and per square kilometer of relevant territory.

Yet, we must probe much deeper than that. For the purposes of economic science, the best example of this today, is Academician V.I. Vernadsky’s division of the known physical universe among three known categories: the Lithosphere, the Biosphere, and the Noösphere. Indeed, all valid universal physical principles are to be made known to mankind’s practice in this mode, as opposed to a deductive quality of mathematical modalities.

The universe is universally creative, or, in other words, systemically and inherently anti-entropic. In other words, a physical law of universal anti-entropy prevails. Those who do not keep up with that universal principle of anti-entropic progress, must ultimately vanish into the company of their dead equations.

On this account, the evidence against Aristotle and both Euclidean and most allegedly non-Euclidean geometries, is, quite literally, massive, a fact which I was fortunate to have discovered at the age of 14, a discovery which I have always recognized, as having nothing specifically of the quality of “genius,” but, rather, the more modest accomplishment of considering more cautiously what I were asked to believe on blind faith in the words of the textbook or teacher. In brief, the problem represented by belief in Euclidean geometry as an expression in physics, is not even halfway as much practical as it is essentially a fully fraudulent ideological fantasy of, chiefly, intellectually cowardly dupes. Hence, with schoolbook geometry, the usual courses in analytical geometry and the usual instruction in the differential calculus, fail for reason of the silliness of their included a-priori presumptions.

I have written a significant amount on the subject of such misconceived popular beliefs as blind faith in Euclid. It is relevant, and probably also indispensable, that I recapitulate the most essential point of that argument in this present location here and now.

Reason versus Sense-Perception

The susceptibilities expressed in the behavior of those duped to blind faith in mathematics or in Aristotelean or Sarpian forms of geometry, is the credulous victim’s attachment to the image of sense-perceptual experience of an object per se. I would not propose that the subject of sense-perception is as simple-minded an affair as mere drawings, or phenomena of standard senses other than sight; I will insist that sense-perception is not the reality of the experience which is sensed.

Rather, as Johannes Kepler illustrates the crucial point to be made, in respect to both his crucial discovery of the principled character of the planetary orbits of Mars and Earth, in his The New Astronomy (1609), and his uniquely original discovery of the principle of gravitation in his The Harmonies of the Worlds (1619), the method of the “vicarious hypothesis” in the first of those two works, and the experimental determination of gravitation by the contradiction of the notions of sight and heard harmonics, in the latter, compel the alert mind to rely upon the characteristic contradiction among sense-perceptions as a means for recognizing an efficient kind of action which casts the shadows known as sense-perceptions, but is not one of those shadows.

The human mind is no wind-up toy, but an agency which learns how to locate and define that which can not itself be sensed, as Bernhard Riemann made points to that effect in both the opening remarks and closing section of his 1854 habilitation dissertation. The human mind itself is something which exists efficiently “outside” the bounds of those mere shadows known as the images cast into the form of our sense-perceptual experiences.

What Is Creativity?

Two of the associates from my scientific teams, recently composed a carefully crafted video account of the record of the anti-entropic chemistry of the evolution of life on Earth, that from samples of the simplest single-celled types, to the successive stages of an oxygen environment and, thence, to the developments of higher forms of life made possible by the generation of the ozone layer. All of this described development occurred within the context of the relevant function of our local galaxy.

What is to be emphasized, is the point that creativity is not something which may, or may not occur in the universe; creativity is the essential nature of the universe. That which is not creating, is, therefore, dying, or already as dead as Nikolai Gogol’s “dead souls:” property which does not exist, or, probably, like Alan Greenspan’s and like notions of “wealth,” never existed. In cancelling “derivatives” or kindred notions of “debt,” we are cancelling something which is, in fact, less than nothing. Yet, an increasingly large number of people from around the world are being consumed, as if by a type of cannibalism practiced upon still living human beings, as done according to the doctrine of President Barack Obama, and, according to the “feudal ground rent-like” doctrine according to J.P. Morgan, its Alan Greenspan, and the cannibalistic health-care and financial practices of the legalistic rituals of the Obama Administration.

Creativity is also, sometimes, of necessity, a destructive force. So, the English baked Jeanne d’Arc alive, and, when they saw that she was dead, restarted the fires to destroy her ashes. She had been murdered by the English on the charge of wearing “men’s clothes,” when they had given her nothing else to wear, and demanded that she appear nonetheless. The news of this ghastly English crime against humanity, reached the then-assembled session of the Council of the Christian Church, news which sparked the process leading, first, into the great ecumenical Council of Florence, and from there the rise of France’s heir of the mission of Jeanne d’Arc, Louis XI.

The results, included the ridding of England of the evil Richard III, which would have been a perfect blessing, had the excellent Henry VII not produced a son whose leading subjects and wives, had, in effect, lost their heads in the process, a Henry VIII whose daughter, Elizabeth chopped off the head of Maria Stuart. James I, son of Maria, was not left in the best condition by the manner and source of his mother’s death. Curses being what they might be, surely the monarchy of England today, were most likely to lose its head, if in a different sense, unless the successor produces the uncommonly rare specimen from those quarters, of a head worth shouldering.

At the present moment, there is an epidemic of hate, world-wide, against the intentionally mass-murderous injustice of the British imperial policies which have gained control, at an accelerating rate, over the physical economies of most of the world. The evil intention of British Prince Philip’s World Wildlife Fund, has been translated into the caprices of a current international trend in law-making which have been bringing on the intended rates of death through artificially induced mass-starvation and related expressions of exactly that mass-murderous, intentional genocide openly and repeatedly declared by a man whose avowed aims exceed the worst such policies of practice of those under a war-time Adolf Hitler, Britain’s Prince Philip, and the kindred health-care, nourishment, employment, and educational policies of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s U.S. followers such as President Barack Obama.

Now, the fabled Erinyes are unloosed upon such evil-doers of this world. In Egypt, as in Tunisia, and spreading at an accelerating rate around the world today, the ancient gods of vengeance are moving against the accomplices of great evil, accomplices who are being toppled from power by mysteriously efficient forces at work, forces which the authorities of governments and their judicial barriers can not resist.

As for the presently extant trans-Atlantic political-economic systems, they are hopelessly doomed in their recent forms, in any case. The Erinyes are, indeed, unloosed. Republican Party majorities in the U.S. House of Representatives!? Let Shakespeare’s Doll Tearsheet tell you about such ridiculous posturers, such pathetic pall-bearers of their already dead desires! Their time had been already long gone before it had been delivered to them in the wake of the recent November elections—and there will soon be a real political wake, and it will come, as it comes, quicker than they could learn to say “Egypt.” Look at those wretched specimens; they openly propose that they have the power to take away almost everything, for as long as they are not carried away by the very fires which their own winds are stoking. The right-wing new Jacobin Terror inside the United States is the tyrant which is already, as seen in Wisconsin, like Libya’s doomed Qaddafi, bringing on its destiny to its early self-destruction. The asses are already braying, at the spectacle which such would-be political tyrants are making of themselves, and there will soon be many more of them ripe to go down in similar fashion.

III. THE PHYSICAL SCIENCE OF ECONOMY

The best place to begin an outline of a physical science of economy at this present point in the world history of economy, would be Cody Jones’ forty-odd minute LPAC summary of the intrinsically anti-entropic characteristics of that known ordering of life on earth. Cody’s presentation is an account which takes the planet’s “history” of the global chemistry of single-cell life-forms, up through the pre-history of iron, into the biologically determined history of the development of an oxygen environment, to the defining of life on Earth provided by the emergence of the protective and other functions of the generation of an “ozone layer.”

To situate that treatment of some highlights of the progressive character of the genesis of life on Earth, we should shift gears, to the effect that we might examine the role of the Solar orbital processes’ generation of a “polarized” process of thermonuclear fusion, up past the level of iron, past some relevant observations by Carl F. Gauss, and of his predecessor Johannes Kepler, on some crucial aspects of the construction of a Solar planetary system of the indicated form and chemical composition.

Those provisional improvisations emphasize the evidence that the universe, as much as we know it, is characteristically an anti-entropic process, composed of such principal leading features as the ordering of creation from the relatively lower, toward successively higher degrees of essentially anti-entropic organization in all of the three categories (lithosphere, biosphere, and noösphere) of the known functional composition of the Solar System and its processes.

To complete a first-approximation view of such assembled exemplary features, the whole should reflect the fact that not only is the Solar system a relatively late-coming feature on the edge of our local galaxy, but that there is known evidence that the role of life on Earth is regulated in certain ways by the processes of that galaxy.

Contrary to the fraudulent “Second Law of Thermodynamics,” the universe, insofar as we know it in these and related terms, is characteristically anti-entropic. There is a startling want of evidence at hand to permit any tolerating of an opposite conclusion.

That, however, is not the end of the argument to be considered. Look more closely at Academician V.I. Vernadsky’s evidence respecting the proof of the qualitatively ontological distinctions among what are named, respectively, the Lithosphere (apparently, the lowest state of known existence on Earth), the Biosphere (the domain of plants and animals which have the characteristic of life), and the essential distinction of a higher order of existence on Earth expressed as voluntarily noëtic behavior, that as, so far, what is known to be specific to mankind, as contrasted with other forms of ostensibly animal-like life.

Once we have outlined the case in those terms, we are confronted with two relatively most startling qualities of evidence. First, that the physical chemistry of living processes is not perfectly subsumed by the behavior of nearly comparable non-living processes. Second, that there is no living species known so far, excepting mankind, which is capable of willfully generating a qualitatively higher order of behavior than is known to be specific to the domain of Lithosphere, than living processes generally, and that no aspect of the Biosphere, is not delimited by the characteristics of the Noösphere.

Every presently known quality of existence is creative within the bounds of those systems which are, in the main, noëtic; but, only mankind is voluntarily noëtic in a manner which is susceptible of comprehension by the human mind.

The foregoing considerations supply a combination of universally bounding and interacting conditions for the practice of economy; however, those potential cognitive powers of the human mind are unique to man, and are conditions of the human mind which have been, so far, poorly understood in the domain of a voluntary guidance provided respecting the conditions under which a society develops.

The most important aspect of the summary characteristics of human life which distinguish mankind absolutely from the beasts, is expressed as the usually misunderstood concept of “the human soul.” There is nothing actually bordering on the fantastic in that concept. Mankind is the only known creature which consciously defines actually universal physical principles, principles, which by virtue of their essential nature, are such that the discovery of such a principle is an expression of personal identity of the human discoverer which is an actively functioning force long after the original discoverer is dead.

The great tragedy on that account, is that popular traditions, such as those of Aristotle and the Liberal followers of Paolo Sarpi, deny the existence of such principles, which is the form of their habituated ignorance which is as much a devotion from Hell as any actually human, but pitiably misguided individual might be condemned to enjoy.

That just stated set of stipulations provides our discussion with the broad pre-conditions for those relative failures and successes of the capability for human progress under varying cultural pre-conditions. It is the latter aspect of the experimental evidence bearing on the practice of political-economy by societies, which is the crux of the needed treatment of the subject of a scientific practice of physical economy in this location.

Any competent design for a physical science of economy must begin with the intention to abandon, at last, that barbaric superstition under which the meaning of the term “infrastructure” implies a pre-design cohering with the building of a foundation in “ground rent” upon which we might erect some structure devoted to the aims of production. Such a barbarically illiterate notion as that, does, indeed, suggest a relic of such expressions of depravity as the notion of pagan gods reigning over mere mortals—the so-called “oligarchical system.”

If there were any more contemptible conception than that oligarchical outlook, it would be that of mankind as comparable to herds of oligarchical cattle waiting to be consumed as meat according to the whim of some owner of a field. We Americans, in particular, have long had more than enough of European and other systems based on kindred sorts of the depraved relics of humanity’s brutish past, even though there was a time when the unification of former colonies into states of a republic recommended some toleration of “ground rent” as a temporary sort of lesser evil, rather than not admitting some among the former British colonies to their justified, if somewhat imperfect claims to membership in our republic.

Children may be permitted to be children, until the time when they are competent to assume adult responsibilities; but, for that arrangement to be continued beyond the precincts of their nursery and playgrounds, they must remain children who we might hope will, finally, grow up to meet the challenge of greater responsibilities in due course.

The proper term to be preferred, rather than “infrastructure,” could be “platforms,” on condition that we recognize “platforms” to be the enveloping environment within which the constantly improved conditions of human production and life are defined in physical principle, as by a continuing rise in the equivalents of “environments” defined by rising energy-flux densities of action (power), per capita, and per square kilometer of territory.

For the purpose of informing the citizens of the principle involved in defining such advances in the human condition, let us examine the role of “fire,” and its equivalent in the known existence and progress of the condition of practice of life in terms of the general notion of “fire.”

Mankind is the only generally known, living species which gladly enjoys the controlled use of fire. For example, in examining what are termed “archeological” sites, the estimate of the necessary distinction between human and higher ape, impels the competent archeologist to search for some evidence of the use of “fire” or tools of a quality of type which are correlated in some crucial respect with the practices of “fire-bringers.” From such beginnings, we must proceed to more sophisticated criteria; looking backwards in history from the present to the remote past. We are obliged, thus, to recognize that the ability to lift the condition of mankind to higher levels of our species’ ability to survive, correlates with progress in the direction of increases of what can be termed conveniently as increased intensities of “energy-flux density,” as from firewood or the like, to charcoal, to coal, to coke, to gases, to petroleum and its functional likeness, and, then, to break the barriers, upward, to the higher chemistry of radioactive modes such as those of nuclear fission and thermonuclear fusion.

Mankind’s willful discovery and development of fuels and comparable expressions of energy-flux density, are crucial factors in the ability of humanity to advance, or even to avoid regression in the conditions of life, and to promote mankind’s per-capita productivity. The crucial measurement, up to the present time, has been the division of the labor of society to the effect, that the equivalent of the capital-intensity of the conditions of life, and of production by mankind, is rising in such a fashion that the physically-defined capital-intensity of life in society is not only rising, but that the net productivity per capita and per square kilometer of cross-sectional area, is rising more rapidly than the cost, measured in effort, of maintaining a rising capital-intensity (negentropically) in modes of existence, culture, and productivity.

For example: humanity has presently reached a point in development of the required potential relative population-density of society, such that no source of applied power lower than nuclear-fission and thermonuclear fusion can now be willfully tolerated as a matter of general policy of practice, by a society which is not content to degenerate in every significance of the connotation of the term “degenerate.”

Before coming to the matter of a general economic policy, consider some additional factors of change which must be taken into consideration before seeking to close the definition of the relevant general definition of the concept which must now, urgently, be the act of discarding the formerly standard notions of “infrastructure.” Start that discussion with the notion of what I have labeled “platforms,” as a comprehensive replacement for the presently worse than useless notion of “infrastructure.”

Space is Now Waiting

For example:

Since the time of the launching of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the Hoover Dam, the most urgent change in policy respecting what are now to be called “platforms,” has been the rise in the required role of nuclear power as the required leading edge for civilized forms of development, as combined with very large and extensive systems of water management, especially what is identified as “fresh water” management. The greatest of such projects of development ready to be set into motion now, is the already long-designed U.S. North American Water and Power Alliance project (NAWAPA), the world’s greatest water-and-power project presently designed in implicit readiness for immediate steps of initial development, now, the greatest such project ever undertaken by mankind so far.

This NAWAPA project, designed by the Parsons company, was already scheduled for implementation in 1964, under U.S. President Lyndon Johnson, which he had intended should be begun as soon as the U.S. engagement in an Indo-China war had been “completed.” The most significant of the changes in policy for the implementation of that construction now, as compared to the intention in 1964, would be a featured role of nuclear power, a feature which is highly recommended because of such considerations as the presently urgent need for emphasis on development of water resources of the U.S.A., Canada, and northern Mexico, as done through diverting water otherwise intended to be simply dumped into the oceans, with no further, permitted benefit for the people of the nations of the U.S.A., Canada, and Mexico. NAWAPA compels the diverted portion of the flow of water into the seas, to turn back for some mere passage of time, for its useful journeys through the land, before, finally, actually, completing its earlier attempts to reach the oceans.

The cardinal implication of this NAWAPA project, as a nuclear-powered project, is that the implementation of that project will bring about phases of development on Earth which, by their very nature, will be the catalytic form of actual stepping-stone to a serious practical effort in man’s launching the industrial-development phases on a large scale of man’s colonization of nearby Solar space.

No doubt, it will be necessary, as was the case with the NASA ventures into extraterrestrial human activity, to equip mankind to place human populations on locations “in space.” Nonetheless, it is the management of nearby space, rather than attempted large-scale human extraterrestrial colonization which should be the immediate goal in sight. Our primary mission, especially in the beginnings, is to manage nearby galactic space, rather than emphasizing an attempted colonization of such sites. Our first mission, as is the case for NAWAPA, is to control the circumstances of human life, rather than colonization as such. The role of man lies chiefly in his, or her mission for the future of humanity, not in collecting real-estate assets “abroad.”

The conquest of nearby space finds its relevant benchmark in the two greatest challenges to the development of economy now, which are the increase of (a) those specific kinds of high-energy-flux-density modes of power, as typified currently by the much more than totally justified emphasis on nuclear power by India, and both nuclear and thermonuclear-power development by China, and (b) the mobilization of great water projects, such as NAWAPA, which will be a far, far greater achievement than even China’s Three Gorges Dam. Central Asia is among the greatest challenges for such development on this account; massive such development is needed for Africa. Proceeding with U.S. President William McKinley’s commitment, contrary to the regrettable nephew of a political skunk, President Theodore Roosevelt, to the related development of the Darien Gap as a connection into South America, is also among the greatest opportunities on this planet now.

To restate the point just made, the future of humanity on Earth depends, not on natural resources, but the creation of what might be considered by some as the unnatural resources required by mankind’s mission in space. So, rather than imagining ourselves to be using existing sources of water, we must proceed with the same guiding spirit as that for the creation of the conditions on Earth, such as the grand project known as NAWAPA, which will have made the same amount of water on Earth seem to be vastly more water available in effect: to create and improve the conditions needed by the mission of mankind, on and beyond Earth.

We must, therefore, similarly, assume responsibility to create and manage the more highly improved of any or all of the natural resources for human life on our planet. The opportunities for man’s control of those conditions on Earth which frighten informed relevant opinion looking at trends today, are enormous. Beyond those opportunities, man must reach out to control the needed development of choice prospective features of nearby Solar space—and beyond.

All of this means, that we are on the verge, if we are truly sane, not only of the wielding of sources of power on Earth, and in nearby parts of the Solar system, but doing so on scales whose benefits would beggar the imagination of most of those who would consider themselves well-informed today. NAWAPA is the leading project among those many which represent the immediate launching pads for mankind in the Solar system’s foreseeable future today.

It must become our intention, in the immediate times ahead today, to develop a new generation of young people who will be in training for those great projects, on such a scale which must define the sense of mission-orientation for our planet in this Solar system’s bounds today. That is the exemplary model for the concept of “platforms” of development in which the conditions for future human existence are to be found as contained now.

In our approach toward nearby space, we do not land on territory; we create a new environment within the depth of a sector of what is being developed as an ontologically higher form of physical space-time. That is the meaning of those stepping-stones of human progress which we should term “platforms.”

It is all feasible. Such are the dreams of old men and women who delight in imagining the future which they have sought to provide, when they are permitted and enabled to do so. That is to be done that the remaining generations may emerge as the progressive succession of generations of adults during the remainder of this century, and beyond that.

The Space That Fills the Mind

As Cody Jones’ referenced argument already implied this point, a very large proportion of the “raw materials” on whose exploitation life on Earth depends, has been presented to us by drawing upon chains of living processes which serve as the gradually depleted concentrations of what we have chosen to consider as such needed materials. The included effect of this on living processes, is, that those processes which appear to tend to deplete the concentrations of such materials on whose relative richness the relevant current array of living processes depends, are made into superior qualities of resources than before, through an upshift of practice into higher forms associated with the equivalent of higher orders of “energy-flux density,” as this is illustrated dramatically by the development of resources of nuclear fission and thermonuclear fusion. In effect, as we trace matters upward, up the chain from the beasts to and among the human species, the amount of power required to offset the effects of relative depletion of what had been the “desired” deposits of fruits of produced chemistries must tend to increase in units of increasing energy-flux density.

Thus, the productive process on which human life depends, must depend, in turn, on the tendency for a relative increase of power required to maintain even a relatively constant rate of what is effectively power consumption, both in quantity and relative intensity. Thus, in that sense, the existence of the role of living processes tends to be increasingly intensive, as relative to results obtained for use of human life per capita and per square kilometer of relevant surface areas and volumes.

The effect, as for mankind, is the image of a process which, acting at the relative center of a certain defined volume of activity, must increase the volume of “capital” resources required per person. This is required not only to compensate for depletion of the equivalent of “raw materials” which must be, in effect, replenished in relative absolute physical value, but which require an increase in the power represented by the unit of human action required.

In that sense, we have an image of increasing energy-flux-density of action per capita and unit of volume of action, as being required to maintain even a relatively constant “standard of living,” and the human productive potential to secure the equivalent of a certain kind of notion of a constant rate of progress in the human condition and its potential, per capita, and so on.

Thus, implicitly, the continued existence of the universe requires a constant rate of rise in intensity and volume of the portion of the universe which we, ostensibly, inhabit. It is the creativity which such a process requires as its characteristic unit of action, which defines mankind’s necessary relationship to the universe at large. What registers with mankind, day to day and generation to generation, is an anti-entropic process as describably of that type.

Zeus & Delphi as the Force of Evil

Looking at what I have just described as a general notion of the quality of universal process on which the continued existence of mankind depends for our universe, we have access to an image of a constantly anti-entropic universe, which is to be considered, provisionally, as the essential condition on which human life in this universe depends. There are, however, two qualities of life to be considered. One is that of an estimably fixed genotype for mankind, fixed at least with respect to the type of mankind with the characteristics of a consciously, and willful creative human species, or the equivalent which we might recognize as defined by man’s existence to our present knowledge of such a prototype. The alternative, is forms of life which appear to represent fixed types of behavioral characteristics on accounts such as this, but which are not shown to be necessarily permanent types within the destinies of future developments within the “platforms” of a society’s developing economy.

Do you desire a Brontosaurus in your parlor?

Here, we have touched upon the domain of those effects which define a meaningful, broad distinction between good and evil.

For example: was there the event of a marsupial form of human functional characteristics in performance? Might a woman exist of human-like cognitive characteristics, who ever kept a childish lover of her species in her pouch? A truly “eggcentric” creature comparable to a Platypus? There are certain types of questions which may be asked, but not answered, such as this one, but which must be asked, nonetheless, just to keep certain issues in focus. If we do not understand what might be the impossible, how could we be confident in estimating what might be real? Turn to the opening remarks within Section 3 of Bernhard Riemann’s habilitation dissertation”13Riemann 1854 habilitation dissertation, #3: “Nach diesen Untersuchungen über die Bestimmung der Massverhältnisse einer n-fach ausgedehten Grösse lassen sich nun die Bedingen angehen, welche zur Bestimmung der Massverhältnisse des Raumes hinreichend und nothwendig sind, wenn Unabhängigkeit der Linien von der Lage under Darstellbarkeit des Linienelements durch die Quadratwurzel aus einem Differentialausdrucke zweiten Grades, also Ebenheit in den kleinsten Theilen vorausgesetzt wird.” The translation into English is that supplied by Professor Henry S. White: “Following these investigations concerning the mode of fixing metric relations in an n-fold extended magnitude, the conditions can now be stated which are sufficient and necessary for determining metric relations in space, when it is assumed in advance that lines are independent of position and that the linear element is representable by the square root of a differential expression of the second degree; that is if flatness in smallest parts is assumed.” See David Eugene Smith, A Source Book in Mathematics, Dover Publications reprint edition, 1959, from McGraw-Hill, 1929: for some meaningful hints bearing on such categorical questions.

All that said and done, and more, the human species is the only species presently known to us which is not only creative in the strictest ontological sense of “creative” powers, but is the only one known to exhibit creative action as a willful choice by the induced effect often attributed to articulated deliberation. Not only is the human genotype willfully creative by virtue of such a potential; the characteristics of all life and related considerations on Earth, or which are in the reach of human willful action within nearby Solar space, are the prospective beneficiaries of the creative potential inherent in the human species. Mankind exhibits, thus, the potential of being, or becoming, a permanent, even immortal species in the universe, with an expression of its quality of permanence extendable to the species which cohabit that region, and to some degree, beyond. So, a human participation in eternity exists even for those who have died.

There is another most notable implication of this. The sense of the material relations in physical space-time does correspond precisely to a quality of sameness among the respective Lithosphere, Biosphere, and Noösphere. Man’s existence is not merely a simple reflection of the conditions determined externally with respect to the quality of the human species; the existence of the human species imposes its effective presence on the physical space-time which our species inhabits either simply, or by efficient implications.

These reflections now bring us to the matter of the Olympian Zeus of Aeschylus’ Prometheus Trilogy.

The Oligarchical Principle

Homer and the great dramatist Aeschylus after him, present us with what was to be known in what we today term ancient Greek presentations and traditions as might be recalled as the common “oligarchical principle” shared between Aristotle and his contemporaries of the Achaemenid imperialism. This is otherwise defined as the distinction of the “gods,” the oligarchical tyrannies, from the mere virtually cattle-like social class of mortal humans, as this notion of the latter, slavish class of mankind is familiar from Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound.

In the ancient Greek sources, the variety of alleged “gods” associated with the notion of a trans-oceanic maritime culture, features the notion of “The Olympians,” and their virtually captive slaves, the “landlubbers.” In the celebrated account from Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound, the greatest offense of the “landlubber” class would be the acquisition of the knowledge of the use of “fire,” or, as would be said among relatively culturally depraved circles today, “nuclear power.”

This evil “oligarchical principle,” is that which, once embodied as ancient imperial Rome in the first of four successive phases (original Roman, Byzantine, Old Venetian, and its New-Venetian, or so-called British incarnation) is the principal present form of embodiment of the ancient oligarchical model of the reign of the maritime system of the Olympian Zeus. The struggle of Prometheus for delivery of the powers of fire and justice into the hands of the republics, has now brought humanity in general to the verge of mankind’s great oppression, the imperial monetarist system which has reigned in most of the world, since before ancient Rome, to the present time.

At the present moment this report is written, the ancient empire, as presently incarnate in its imperial monetarist form, is now rapidly disintegrating throughout, most emphatically, the entire sweep of the trans-Atlantic world, that at the same time that the vestiges of a rotting British monetarist empire are crumbling in a fashion which suggests Shelley’s crumbling image of Ozymandias. In this moment, the fate of all humanity lies in the hands of those who would lead the march from a crumbling edifice of imperial monetarism, into the prospect which the restoration of Franklin Roosevelt’s Glass-Steagall law opens as a force spreading among the nations, which is all that is left before us of the hope for a safe world for mankind in our time.

Footnotes

1In its recent discussions, the “basement’s” scientific team has emphasized attention to the specific incompetence of the British biologist’s custom associated with the name of Charles Darwin, which purports to explain the selection among species with utter incompetence, as according to the social utilitarian “pleasure-pain principle” of Paolo Sarpi’s boorish mimic. the charlatan Charles Darwin. It is the nature of the order in the universe, that if, and when we adopted a purported rule of practice which is contrary to the actual, physical ordering-principle in the universe, we do great damage to mankind by the adoption of a false choice of universal ordering principle in the guidance of society’s behavior. Darwin was not merely wrong; he did grave damage to any society which tolerated his alleged “principle,” just as Adam Smith has ruined every part of the world economy on which his foolish doctrine has succeeded in exerting influence.

2Any respectable railway system’s rate of travel for passengers, should be in the order of 300 km per hour. The best performance for rail-like travel is obtained in magnetic-levitation modes, both for passengers and for freight. The prospect is for 1,000 miles-per-hour, in evacuated tubes. It must not be overlooked, that the issue on which the British empire based its commitments to planet-wide geopolitical warfare since the A.D. 1890 British monarchy’s ouster of Germany’s Chancellor Bismarck, was the mortal issue of the advantage in net distance travelled of railway passenger and freight traffic, especially freight, for transcontinental and international freight transport over maritime transport. The so-called “automobile industry” was not a waste; what was wasted was the machine-tool-design capability on which any successful economy depends absolutely in modern times.

5Although Vernadsky credits Teilhard de Chardin with the minting of the term “noösphere,” the descriptive term as minted by Chardin, does not reach any of the much deeper, essential, principled features of Vernadsky’s systemically Riemannian contributions under the use of this term.

6In deference to Stephen Vincent Benet’s “The Devil and Daniel Webster,” I would not say, “Come up to Scratch.”

8The war-time memoirs of General Charles de Gaulle prompt relevant insights into this matter, and of Marc Bloch’s Strange Defeat (London: Oxford University Press, 1946).

9In what was called “The First World War,” the concern of the German command was the need to cripple the advance of the Russian forces moving to attack Germany from the east, while German forces were already being subjected to a mobilization against them on the western front. In the “second world war,” the considerations were somewhat different, but the point to be made remains clear, nonetheless. There are comparable implications in the case of the Soviet commitment to conducting the battle at Stalingrad. The U.S. logistical support for the Soviet Union in this period leading to the Wehrmacht’s defeat at Stalingrad, was a most crucial development in the entirety of “World War II.” The principles of physical geometry expressed by Prussian strategy in aid of the Russian tactic of defense against Napoleon’s forces, was a comparable consideration, again, in Soviet defense during World War II. A comparable case was the trap set for the U.S. forces in the war launched by the U.S.A. in Indo-China, despite both President Kennedy’s and General Douglas MacArthur’s warnings against the trap implicit in a “land war in Asia,” a warning which should be regarded as a later case expressing the same principle. British-directed U.S. land wars in west Asia are comparable types of folly, and we take into account that the British have sometimes sacrificed their own forces out of the desire for the damage incurred by the United States, as in two wars in Iraq and Barack Obama’s lunatic folly in Afghanistan.

10The ironical fact is, that, for as long as Britain was implicitly a backer of the creation of the Nazi takeover of Germany, the anti-U.S.A. alliance of Britain and Japan continued in effect. When Britain was impelled to “adjust” its then outstanding alliances after the Fall of France, the British alliance with Japan against the U.S.A. became complicated, to say the least. Japan reacted by turning to its “Plan B,” attacks on both the U.S.A. and the British and related interests in the Asia-Indian Ocean sector. The actual launching of the Japan attack on Pearl Harbor came as a “wrenching” quality of last-minute final decision to go ahead, a decision echoed in character by a “last minute, existentialist quality of final decision” to proceed. One must not overlook the fact that, as of the 1920s, major naval forces were still the force of choice for “mass destruction” of a rival strategic power.

13Riemann 1854 habilitation dissertation, #3: “Nach diesen Untersuchungen über die Bestimmung der Massverhältnisse einer n-fach ausgedehten Grösse lassen sich nun die Bedingen angehen, welche zur Bestimmung der Massverhältnisse des Raumes hinreichend und nothwendig sind, wenn Unabhängigkeit der Linien von der Lage under Darstellbarkeit des Linienelements durch die Quadratwurzel aus einem Differentialausdrucke zweiten Grades, also Ebenheit in den kleinsten Theilen vorausgesetzt wird.” The translation into English is that supplied by Professor Henry S. White: “Following these investigations concerning the mode of fixing metric relations in an n-fold extended magnitude, the conditions can now be stated which are sufficient and necessary for determining metric relations in space, when it is assumed in advance that lines are independent of position and that the linear element is representable by the square root of a differential expression of the second degree; that is if flatness in smallest parts is assumed.” See David Eugene Smith, A Source Book in Mathematics, Dover Publications reprint edition, 1959, from McGraw-Hill, 1929: